THE 

ART   OF   DEBATE 


BY 


WARREN    CHOATE   SHAW,    A.M. 

PROFESSOR   OF    PUBLIC    SPEAKING 
AT   KNOX   COLLEGE 


ALLYN   and   BACON 

BOSTON  NEW  YORK  CHICAGO 

ATLANTA  SAN   FRANCISCO 


COPYRIGHT,    1922 
BY  WARREN  CHOATE  SHAW 


Wortoooti  $regg 

J.  S.  Cushing  Co.  —Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


£531 


Dedicated 

TO 

THE  MEMORY  OF 

CHARLES  W.  MOREY 

TEACHER,   AUTHOR,    FRIEND 


501877 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/artofdebateOOshawrich 


PREFACE 

The  aim  of  this  book  is  to  furnish  students  with  a  new 
and  reliable  working-text  on  the  art  of  debate,  complete 
in  every  detail,  yet  without  a  single  page  of  padding. 

This  work  is  the  product  of  the  author's  twenty  years' 
experience  with  debating  activities,  both  in  the  East  and 
in  the  Middle- West,  first  as  a  school  and  college  debater, 
and  then  as  coach,  critic,  judge,  and  teacher  of  the  subject. 
During  all  these  years,  he  has  sought  new  methods  of  ex- 
plaining and  applying  old  principles.  These  methods  he 
has  tested  in  the  class  room  and  with  college  debating  teams, 
and  the  success  that  has  followed  their  application  has  led 
him  to  put  them  into  permanent  form. 

This  book  is  unique,  not  only  in  its  detailed  treatment 
of  various  subjects,  but  in  its  general  plan  and  arrangement. 

Part  I  aims  to  provide  the  student  at  the  outset  with  a 
firm  grasp  of  beginning  principles,  so  that  he  may  begin  at 
once  the  intelligent  practice  of  debate  in  conjunction  with 
his  study  of  the  theory. 

Part  II  makes  the  student  familiar  with  all  the  instruments 
of  proof  before  he  is  expected  to  handle  them  in  the  difficult 
and  highly  technical  process  of  analyzing  a  problem  to  find 
the  issues.  The  treatment  of  beginning  principles  in  Part  I 
has  enabled  the  student,  through  actual  debating  practice, 
to  appreciate  the  value  of  these  minute  details  in  proof. 

Part  III  approaches  the  whole  subject  of  analysis  and 
brief -drawing  from  an  entirely  new  angle;    that  is,  from 


vi  Preface 

the  angle  of  building  a  case;  and  in  one  essential  particular 
it  fills  up  a  great  gap  in  previous  texts  in  that  it  provides 
specifically  for  the  investigation  of  every  phase  of  a  debate- 
subject. 

Part  IV  treats  conviction  and  persuasion  as  concrete  and 
practical  subjects  of  instruction.  It  presents  under  the  title 
of  Speech-Composition  much  that  is  valuable  in  connection 
with  all  composition,  but  more  particularly  what  is  valuable 
to  the  debater  in  his  special  work  of  composing  speeches  for 
debate.  It  also  includes  a  chapter  on  Strategy  which  is  en- 
tirely new  in  text-books  on  debate. 

The  two  most  unique  chapters  in  the  book  are  undoubtedly 
the  chapter  on  Surveying  the  Proof  and  the  chapter  on  Strategy. 
The  Phase-System  of  analysis  employed  in  the  chapter  on  Sur- 
veying the  Proof  is  the  author's  original  creation.  It  has  been 
tested  by  years  of  application  in  the  class  room  and  by  many 
college  debating  teams ;  and  it  has  been  called  by  hundreds  of 
students  and  college  debaters  the  most  valuable  contribution 
for  one'sdife  work  that  a  training  in  debate  can  give. 

The  chapter  on  Strategy  is  one  that  will  make  every  reader 
wonder  why  this  subject  has  been  neglected  so  long  by  teach- 
ers and  writers  on  debate;  inasmuch  as  strategy  is  one  of 
the  most  important  means  by  which  a  debater  demonstrates 
his  skill.  i 

This  book  covers  all  that  is  commonly  treated  in  a  book 
on  argumentation,  and  may  be  used  with  equal  advantage 
in  either  argumentation  or  debate  classes;  for  debate,  as 
it  is  treated  here,  is  regarded  merely  as  a  highly  developed 
and  specialized  form  of  argumentation. 

For  assistance  in  the  work  of  preparing  this  text-book,  the 
author  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  general  indebtedness  to 
all  previous  writers  on  the  subject  of  debate,  as  well  as  to 
many  other  writers  on  the  subjects  of  logic,  rhetoric,  and 


Preface 


vn 


public  speaking;  but  more  particularly  he  wishes  to  ac- 
knowledge his  lasting  indebtedness  to  students,  debaters, 
and  teaching-assistants  with  whom  he  has  labored  and  who 
have  helped  him  beyond  measure  by  their  encouragement. 

w.  c.  s. 

November,  1922 


CONTENTS 

PART   I 
BEGINNING  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  The  Nature  of  Debate 1 

II.  Choosing  the  Subject 8 

III.  Assembling  the  Proof     .                 23 

IV.  Making  the  Speech 35 

PART  II 

ELEMENTS  OF  PROOF 

I.  Evidence 49 

II.  Argument 73 

III.  Fallacy 105 

IV.  Refutation 120 

PART    III 

BUILDING  THE  CASE 

I.  Defining  the  Terms 135 

II.  Surveying  the  Proof 146 

III.  Finding  the  Issues  .        . 185 

IV.  Drawing  the  Brief 203 

PART  IV 

MAKING  THE  PLEA 

I.  Conviction 246 

II.  Persuasion 269 

III.  Speech-Composition  ........  322 

IV.  Strategy 365 

ix 


x  Contents 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX  PAGE 

A.  Suggested  Course  op  Study 403 

B.  Debate  Topics  .         .         .         ...         .         .         .  417 

C.  Propositions  for  Criticism 422 

D.  Material  for  the  Study  of  Evidence  ....  425 

E.  Material  for  the  Study  of  the 

Categorical  Syllogism 440 

F.  Material  for  the  Study  of  Fallacy    ....  441 

G.  Material  for  Exercises  in  Brief-Drawing          .         .  443 
H.     Specimen  Schedule  for  Formal  Debates      .         .         .  457 

INDEX 459 


THE  ART  OF  DEBATE 


THE   ART  OF   DEBATE 

PART   I.     BEGINNING   PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  NATURE   OF  DEBATE1 

Value  of  Debate.  —  Debate  is  an  art,  which,  through  the 
ages,  has  been  considered  the  chief  means  of  advancement 
for  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  professions  of  law  and  poli- 
tics ;  but  to  assume  on  this  account  that  it  may  be  studied 
with  profit  only  by  lawyers  and  politicians  is  greatly  to 
underestimate  its  value  for  the  ordinary  layman.' 

Debate  is  an  art  that  develops  skill  in  the  process  of  in- 
fluencing others  to  accept  or  reject  belief;  and,  since  no 
man  to-day  is  ever  free  from  the  necessity  of  defending  his 
own  beliefs  or  of  influencing  others  to  reject  or  modify  their 
beliefs,  debate,  as  an  art,  is  not  only  valuable  to  lawyers 
and  politicians,  but  is  just  as  valuable  to  all  men,  whatever 
their  occupations  may  chance  to  be. 

The  study  of  debate  is  valuable;  because  it  trains  men 
in  quick  and  accurate  thinking ;  because  it  develops  in  them 
the  qualities  of  assurance  and  self-reliance ;  because  it  helps 
them  to  win  their  daily  bread ;  and  because  it  enables  them 
to  rise  to  positions  of  leadership  among  their  fellow-men. 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  The  Nature  of  Debate,  see  Appendix  A. 


2  '  ■  Beginning  Principles 

Debate  as  an  Art.  —  Debate  is  called  an  art  for  two  very 
distinct  reasons :  First,  because  it  involves  a  process  that 
requires  skill  in  its  performance;  and  second,  because  it 
involves  a  systematized  body  of  principles  intended  to  de- 
velop skill  in  the  performance  of  that  process. 

It  differs  from  a  pure  science,  in  that  its  object  is  not 
merely  to  impart  knowledge  concerning  a  process,  but  is 
rather  to  impart  knowledge  and  also  to  develop  skill. 

Like  every  other  art,  debate  may  be  regarded,  however, 
as  an  applied  science ;  for  many  of  its  principles  are  drawn 
directly  from  the  basic  sciences  of  law,  logic,  and  psychology. 

Debate,  furthermore,  may  be  regarded  as  a  composite 
art;  for  many  of  its  other  principles  are  derived  from  the 
contributory  arts  of  rhetoric  and  oratory. 

Definition  of  Debate.  —  The  term  debate,  as  it  is  employed 
in  this  text,  may  be  defined  as  the  art  of  formal  and  oral  con- 
troversy. 

Because  debate  is  essentially  an  art  of  controversy,  it  in- 
volves a  process  consisting  of  a  struggle  between  opposing 
parties  to  influence  others  to  accept  or  reject  belief;  and 
does  not  denote  the  mere  struggle  that  takes  place  in  one's 
own  mind  during  efforts  to  determine  belief. 

Because  debate  is  also  an  art  of  formal  controversy,  it 
should  never  be  regarded  as  a  process  of  mere  wrangling; 
for  in  wrangling  no  formalities  are  observed,  and  in  fact 
no  art  is  displayed.  Debate,  in  contrast  with  wrangling, 
demands  the  formality  of  extended  and  orderly  discourse 
in  the  interchange  of  opinion  and  argument. 

Because,  furthermore,  debate  is  an  art  of  oral  contro- 
versy, it  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  allied  subject  of 
argumentation.  To  bring  out  the  difference  in  meaning 
between  these  two  subjects,  argumentation  may  be  defined 


The  Nature  of  Debate  3 

as  an  art  that  employs  either  written  or  oral  discourse  to 
accomplish  its  purpose ;  whereas,  debate  is  an  art  that  aims 
to  accomplish  the  same  purpose  by  means  of  oral  discourse 
alone.  Debate,  therefore,  is  a  specialized  form  of  argu- 
mentation that  is  confined  exclusively  to  a  method  of  oral 
expression. 

The  Purpose  of  Debate.  —  The  purpose  for  which  debate 
may  be  employed  is  either  to  demonstrate  the  superior 
cleverness  or  talent  of  one  debater  over  another,  or  to  in- 
fluence others  to  accept  or  reject  belief.  If  the  first  purpose 
is  sought,  the  art  of  debate  degenerates  into  sophistry  or 
oratorical  bombast,  and  is  valuable  only  as  a  means  of  grati- 
fying the  vanity  of  individuals.  To  promote  such  a  purpose 
is  hardly  worthy  of  the  serious  effort  of  teacher  or  pupil; 
but  to  promote  the  second  purpose  is  among  the  most  worthy 
objects  of  education.  The  only  worthy  purpose  of  debate, 
therefore,  is  not  to  demonstrate  the  superior  cleverness  or 
talent  of  one  debater  over  another;  but  is  rather  to  in- 
fluence others  to  accept  or  reject  belief. 

Nature  of  Belief  and  Disbelief  as  the  Goals  of  Debate.  — 

Since  belief  or  disbelief  is  the  goal  toward  which  a  debater 
must  strive,  it  is  important  that  he  should  understand  clearly 
the  meaning  of  these  terms. 

Belief  and  disbelief  represent,  of  course,  opposite  states 
of  mind;'  and  both  are  terms  used  to  designate  a  mental 
attitude  in  respect  to  the  alleged  truth  of  an  idea. 

Belief  is  used  to  denote  a  complete  certainty  or  assurance 
of  truth  in  respect  to  an  idea ;  and  disbelief  is  used  to  de- 
note an  uncertainty  or  non-assurance  of  truth  in  respect 
to  an  idea. 

Belief,  when  based  upon  reason,  may  be  spoken  of  as  a 
conviction;    and,  when  based  upon  faith,  may  be  spoken 


4  Beginning  Principles 

of  as  a  persuasion.     Belief,  conviction,  and  persuasion,  there- 
fore, are  closely  synonymous  terms. 

Disbelief,  when  based  either  upon  reason  or  upon  lack  of 
faith,  may  be  spoken  of  as  doubt.  Disbelief  and  doubt, 
therefore,  in  contrast  with  belief,  conviction,  and  persuasion, 
are  also  closely  synonymous  terms. 

The  Twofold  Process  of  Conviction  and  Persuasion.  — 
For  the  purpose  of  influencing  belief,  debate  employs  the 
twofold  process  of  conviction  and  persuasion.  These  two 
terms  are  used  to  designate,  not  only  a  state  of  mind 
synonymous  with  belief,  but  also  two  of  the  processes 
by  which  belief  is  created  or  destroyed. 

Conviction  is  a  process  that  creates  belief  or  disbelief  through 
an  appeal  to  reason ;  and  persuasion  is  a  process  that  creates 
belief  or  disbelief  through  an  appeal  to  the  emotions.  Con- 
viction makes  one  see  the  truth ;  persuasion  makes  one  feel 
it.  Conviction  makes  the  truth  clear;  persuasion  makes 
it  interesting.  Conviction  drives  one  to  accept  the  truth; 
persuasion  leads  one  to  embrace  it. 

Each  of  these  two  processes  represents  a  powerful  means 
of  influencing  others  in  their  beliefs.  Neither  can  safely 
be  ignored;  and  each  should  ordinarily  be  employed  to 
supplement  the  other. 

An  example  of  the  difference  between  these  two  processes 
may  be  found  in  the  different  types  of  appeal  employed  by 
a  salesman.  If  he  sells  his  goods  by  demonstrating  their 
superior  quality,  he  uses  conviction  ;  but  if  he  sells  his  goods 
by  appealing  to  the  pity,  sympathy,  pride,  shame,  good- 
will, or  animosity  of  his  customers,  he  then  uses  persuasion. 

In  some  instances  one  of  these  methods  alone  might  prove 
effective;  but  usually  a  judicious  mixture  of  the  two  is 
required. 


The  Nature  of  Debate  5 

Proof  the  Most  Fundamental  Process  in  Debate.  —  Con- 
viction and  persuasion  are  both  important  processes  in  de- 
bate, but  both  rely  upon  the  more  fundamental  process 
known  as  proof. 

Proof  is  a  term  used  to  designate  either  the  process  or 
the  materials  by  which  truth  is  established.  The  materials 
of  proof  are  evidence  and  argument ;  and  the  process  of  proof 
consists  in  the  presentation  of  all  the  evidence  and  argument 
necessary  to  establish  truth. 

The  Relation  of  Proof  to  Conviction  and  Persuasion.  — 
By  means  of  the  combined  processes  of  proof,  conviction, 
and  persuasion,  debate  achieves  its  purpose  of  influencing 
others  to  accept  or  reject  belief. 

Proof  establishes  truth;  and  conviction  and  persuasion 
together  give  it  certainty  and  assurance. 

Proof  is  entirely  impersonal;  whereas,  conviction  and 
persuasion  are  altogether  personal.  Proof  is  a  process  that 
establishes  truth  without  regard  to  its  being  understood  or 
appreciated ;  whereas,  conviction  and  persuasion  are  pro- 
cesses that  make  proof  intelligible  and  acceptable. 

Conviction  is  a  process,  therefore,  that  makes  clear  the 
validity  of  proof;  and  persuasion  is  a  process  that  creates 
interest  in  proof  and  provides  a  motive  for  its  acceptance. 

Outline  of  the  Study  of  Debate.  —  If  the  student  of  de- 
bate is  to  acquire  a  thorough  mastery  of  his  subject,  he  must 
become  familiar  with  all  the  theory  involved  in  understand- 
ing the  nature  of  proof,  the  proper  methods  of  selecting 
and  arranging  proof,  and  the  principles  of  conviction  and 
persilasion  that  govern  the  effective  presentation  of  proof. 

A  mere  knowledge  of  theory  in  connection  with  proof, 
however,  is  not  all  that  is  necessary;  for  the  debater  is 
powerless    who    cannot    put    his    theory    into    practice. 


6  Beginning  Principles 

Throughout  the  study  of  this  subject,  therefore,  a  debater 
must  constantly  seek  to  combine  theory  with  practice,  in 
order  that  practice  may  make  theory  more  intelligible,  and 
in  order  that  theory  may  make  practice  more  profitable. 

With  the  ideal  of  combining  theory  and  practice  from 
the  very  outset  in  debate,  the  first  part  of  this  book,  under 
the  title  Beginning  Principles,  contains  four  chapters,  on 
the  nature  of  debate,  choosing  the  subject,  assembling  the 
proof,  and  making  the  speech,  which  are  intended  to  make 
the  student  able  to  begin  at  once  the  practice  of  debate 
with  some  firm  grasp  of  its  most  elementary  principles. 

The  second  part  of  the  book  under  the  title,  Elements 
of  Proof,  contains  four  chapters  on  the  subjects  of  evidence, 
argument,  fallacy,  and  refutation ;  and  is  intended  to  make 
the  student  familiar  with  all  the  instruments  of  proof  that 
he  must  necessarily  use  in  debate. 

The  third  part  of  the  book,  under  the  title,  Building  the 
Case,  contains  four  chapters,  on  defining  the  terms,  sur- 
veying the  proof,  finding  the  issues,  and  drawing  the  brief ; 
and  is  intended  to  make  the  student  familiar  with  all  the 
processes  necessary  in  building  up  a  case  for  presentation 
in  debate. 

The  fourth  part  of  the  book,  under  the  title  Making  the 
Plea,  contains  also  four  chapters,  on  the  subjects  of  con- 
viction, persuasion,  speech-composition,  and  strategy;  and 
is  intended  to  make  the  student  able  to  present  his  case  in 
debate  in  the  most  effective  manner  for  accomplishing  the 
purpose  of  influencing  others  to  accept  or  reject  belief. 

False  and  True  Conceptions  in  Regard  to  the  Study  of 
Debate.  —  As  a  student  approaches  the  subject  of  debate, 
he  must  disabuse  his  mind  of  three  common  and  very  false 
conceptions  of  the  subject.     He   must,  for  example,  put 


The  Nature  of  Debate  7 

out  of  his  mind  the  discouraging  thought  that  debaters  are 
only  born  and  not  made ;  for  this  theory  has  been  disproved 
by  a  countless  number  of  instances  in  which  men  of  little 
promise  have  become  effective  debaters  through  long  train- 
ing and  rigid  discipline.  He  must  put  out  of  his  mind, 
also,  the  thought  that  successful  debating  is  a  product  of 
mere  horse-sense  and  momentary  inspiration ;  for  the  whole 
long  history  of  debate,  as  it  has  been  practiced  from  the 
earliest  times,  is  literally  strewn  with  the  wrecks  and  failures 
of  those  who  have  adopted  this  theory.  And,  finally,  the 
debater  must  put  out  of  his  mind  the  thought  that,  with 
the  knowledge  of  one  or  two  principles,  and  with  a  little 
superficial  coaching  by  his  friends,  he  may  become  an  ex- 
perienced debater,  who  is  master  of  his  subject  and  who  is 
ready  to  meet  any  emergency.  All  these  conceptions  of 
the  art  of  debate  are  utterly  false,  and  only  lead  to  disap- 
pointment and  failure. 

What  the  debater  should  carry  in  mind  constantly 
throughout  his  study  is  that  the  art  of  debate  includes  many 
difficult  and  technical  theories  that  he  must  master;  and 
that,  in  order  to  acquire  proficiency  in  their  use,  he  must 
enter  upon  a  long  period  of  training,  involving  the  most 
rigid  self -discipline,  with  its  keynote  expressed  in  the  words 
of  Demosthenes  :  "  Practice  !     Practice  !     Practice  !  " 


CHAPTER  II 

CHOOSING  THE   SUBJECT1 

Importance  of  Choosing  Wisely  a  Subject  of  Debate.  — 
None  of  the  problems  arising  in  debate  is  more  important 
than  the  choice  of  a  proper  subject;  for,  if  the  subject  of 
debate  is  chosen  unwisely,  it  is  sure  to  occasion  much  diffi- 
culty and  serious  misunderstanding.  In  some  cases,  for 
example,  the  unwise  choice  of  a  subject  shifts  debate  away 
from  the  very  points  intended  for  discussion;  in  others, 
it  opens  the  way  to  shallow  quibbling  or  petty  strategy; 
and  in  still  others,  it  makes  debate  itself  impossible.  No 
pains  should  be  spared,  therefore,  by  the  student  of  this 
art  in  choosing  wisely  proper  subjects  for  debate. 

Distinction  between  Subjects  of  Debate  and  Other  Sub- 
jects. —  A  subject  of  debate  is  the  subject  of  an  argumen- 
tative form  of  discourse;  and  as  such  it  differs  materially 
from  the  type  of  subject  commonly  employed  in  other  forms 
of  discourse.  Description,  Narration,  and  Exposition,  for 
example,  are  non-argumentative  forms  of  discourse,  and 
may  employ  mere  terms  as  their  subjects ;  but  debate,  since 
it  involves  the  use  of  argumentative  discourse,  must  employ 
as  its  subject  a  proposition  rather  than  a  mere  term. 

Definition  of  the  Proposition.  —  The  proposition  as  sub- 
ject of  debate  is  the  main  statement  of  alleged  truth  to  be 
proved  or  disproved  by  the  parties  in  controversy. 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Choosing  the  Subject,  see  Appendix  A. 

8 


Choosing  the  Subject  9 

Technical  Names  of  the  Proposition.  —  Under  various 
circumstances  the  proposition  is  known  by  a  variety  of 
technical  names.  In  ordinary  controversies  and  in  school 
debates  it  is  frequently  called  the  question;  in  parliamentary 
assemblies  it  takes  the  form  of  a.  resolution  or  a  motion;  and 
in  courts  of  law  it  is  termed  the  pleadings.  In  any  form, 
however,  and  under  all  circumstances,  the  nature  of  the 
proposition  is  essentially  the  same. 

Distinction  between  a  Proposition  and  a  Term.  —  The 

distinction  between  a  proposition  and  a  term  is  that  a 
proposition  is  a  complete  declarative  sentence  expressing  a 
judgment ;  and  a  term  is  a  single  word  or  phrase  expressing 
a  concept  or  naming  a  thing.  To  illustrate :  A  jury,  three 
fourths  of  a  jury,  a  verdict,  competency  to  render  a  verdict, 
and  competency  to  render  a  verdict  in  all  criminal  cases  are 
terms ;  whereas,  three  fourths  of  a  jury  should  be  competent 
to  render  a  verdict  in  all  criminal  cases  is  a  proposition. 

Theoretical  Necessity  for  the  Proposition  as  Subject.  — 
A  proposition,  rather  than  a  term,  is  necessary  as  the  sub- 
ject of  debate,  because  debate  aims  to  establish  or  dises- 
tablish an  alleged  truth.  Now  truth  consists  in  the  actual 
association  of  two  concepts;  and  requires,  therefore,  for 
its  statement  a  joining  of  these  two  concepts  by  means  of  a 
verb  that  will  designate  the  character  of  the  association. 
Thus,  an  alleged  truth  demands  for  its  expression  a  com- 
plete declarative  sentence,  or  proposition. 

Practical  Value   of  the   Proposition  as   Subject.  —  The 

proposition  as  the  subject  of  debate  is  not  only  necessary  in 
theory,  but  is  also  extremely  valuable  in  practice;  for  by 
means  of  the  proposition,  which  must  be  affirmed  on  the  one 
hand  and  denied  on  the  other,  definite  sides  in  a  controversy 


10  Beginning  Principles 

are  established;  and  endless  discussion  about  matters  not 
in  dispute  is  avoided.  Only  by  means  of  the  proposition 
can  the  exact  point  in  controversy  be  determined  by  the 
debaters  and  be  made  clear  to  those  whose  decision  is  sought. 

Requirements  Governing  the  Subject  Matter  of  the 
Proposition.  —  Though  any  declarative  sentence  constitutes  a 
proposition,  not  all  such  sentences  may  serve  the  purpose 
of  the  proposition  as  subject  of  debate.  To  serve  this  pur- 
pose well,  the  proposition  should  satisfy  certain  require- 
ments both  in  regard  to  its  subject  matter  and  in  regard  to 
its  phraseology.  The  requirements  governing  its  subject 
matter  are  that  it  must  be : 

1.  Adapted  to  Proof ; 

2.  Adapted  to  Controversy ; 

3.  Adapted  to  the  Speakers ;   and 

4.  Adapted  to  the  Occasion. 

Subject  Matter  of  the  Proposition  Adapted  to  Proof.  — 
The  first  requirement  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of 
the  proposition  is  that  it  be  adapted  to  proof.  This  means 
simply  that  the  proposition  should  present  a  problem  for 
the  solution  of  which  it  is  possible  both  to  obtain  evidence 
and  to  make  a  comparatively  thorough  survey  of  all  the 
evidence  involved. 

Propositions  like  the  following  obviously  violate  this 
requirement : 

Resolved:  That  angels  may  be  sent  from  heaven  to  earth 
without  passing  through  the  intervening  space;    and 

Resolved :   That  the  pen  is  mightier  than  the  sword. 

The  first  of  these  propositions,  though  discussed  with 
delight  by  medieval  schoolmen,  is  obviously  one  on  which 
evidence  is  unavailable ;   and  the  second,  though  very  com- 


Choosing  the  Subject  11 

monly  discussed  by  later  generations  of  school  men  and 
school  boys,  is  one  for  which  a  comparatively  thorough 
survey  of  all  evidence  is  impossible.  Neither,  therefore, 
meets  the  requirement  that  its  subject  matter  be  adapted 
to  proof. 

Subject  Matter  of  Proposition  Adapted  to  Controversy. 

—  The  second  requirement  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter 
of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be  adapted  to  controversy.  To 
satisfy  this  requirement,  the  proposition  must  not  be  alto- 
gether one-sided  or  capable  of  demonstration  like  a  theorem 
in  geometry,  but  must  rather  involve  a  problem  about  the 
solution  of  which  there  are  at  least  two  points  of  view  and 
a  definite  clash  of  opinion  with  plausible  evidence  and  ar- 
gument on  both  sides.  In  other  words,  the  proposition  must 
present  some  possibility  of  proof  on  both  its  affirmative  and 
negative  sides. 

A  proposition  that  obviously  violates  this  requirement 
is: 

Resolved:  That  the  date  of  Washington's  birth  was  Feb- 
ruary 22,  1732.  U 

Subject  Matter  of  Proposition  Adapted  to  the  Speakers. 

—  The  third  requirement  for  'the  subject  matter  of  the 
proposition  is  that  it  be  adapted  to  the  speakers.  Such  a 
requirement  means  that  the  proposition  should  not  involve 
a  problem  that  is  beyond  the  intellectual  capacity  of  the 
speakers  to  handle.  In  other  words,  the  proposition  should 
not  demand  of  the  speakers  a  technical  knowledge  that 
they  are  unable  to  acquire  within  a  reasonable  period  of 
preparation  for  debate.  To  fulfill  this  requirement  most 
satisfactorily,  the  proposition  should  usually  involve  a 
discussion  of  matter  that  is  already  somewhat  familiar 
to  the  speakers. 


12  Beginning  Principles 

As  an  example,  the  following  proposition  obviously  vio- 
lates this  requirement,  when  considered  in  reference  to 
speakers  who  are  wholly  unfamiliar  with  the  problems  of 
finance : 

Resolved:  That  Congress  should  prohibit  by  law  all  specu- 
lation in  foodstuffs. 

Subject  Matter  of  Proposition  Adapted  to  the  Occasion. 

—  The  fourth  and  last  requirement  for  the  subject  matter 
of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be  adapted  to  the  occasion. 
This  means  that  the  proposition  should  be  timely;  that 
it  should  deal  with  a  problem  of  current  interest ;  and  that 
it  should  touch,  at  least,  the  curiosity,  and,  if  possible,  the 
special  interests  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 

To  illustrate  :  The  following  proposition,  if  debated  before 
a  conference  of  labor-leaders,  would  obviously  violate  this 
requirement;  whereas,  if  it  were  debated  before  a  confer- 
ence of  college  presidents,  it  might  prove  highly  satisfactory : 

Resolved:  That  American  colleges  should  substitute  intra- 
mural for  inter-collegiate  athletics. 

Requirements  Governing  the  Phraseology  of  the  Propo- 
sition. —  If  the  proposition  is  to  be  suitable  for  debate,  it 
should  satisfy  requirements,  not  only  in  respect  to  its  subject 
matter,  but  also  in  respect  to  its  phraseology.  The  require- 
ments which,  so  far  as  possible,  should  govern  its  phrase- 
ology are  that  it  be  : 

1.  Single; 

2.  Specific; 

3.  Clear ; 

4.  Concise ; 

5.  Positive ; 

6.  Unprejudiced;  and 

7.  With  the  Burden  of  Proof  on  the  Affirmative. 


Choosing  the  Subject  13 

The  Proposition  Made  Single.  —  Since  it  is  plainly  im- 
possible to  discuss  satisfactorily  two  distinct  solutions  of 
two  distinct  problems  at  the  same  time,  the  first  require- 
ment for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be 
single.  The  proposition  must  be  single,  in  that  it  presents 
a  single  solution  for  a  single  problem  or  for  a  single  set  of 
related  problems. 

Under  this  requirement  a  simple  or  complex  sentence, 
rather  than  a  compound  one,  is  desirable,  although  not 
absolutely  necessary.  If  a  compound  grammatical  con- 
struction is  unavoidable  in  order  to  state  the  component 
parts  of  the  single  solution  that  is  offered,  such  a  construc- 
tion does  not  destroy  the  singleness  of  the  proposition  in 
the  sense  in  which  this  term  is  used. 

To  illustrate :  The  following  proposition  is  objectionable, 
because  it  advances  two  distinct  solutions  for  two  distinct 
problems : 

Resolved :  That  ex-Presidents  of  the  United  States  and 
members  of  the  President's  cabinet  should  be  given  seats  in  the 
United  States  Senate  with  all  the  privileges  of  membership 
except  the  right  to  vote. 

The  following  proposition,  however,  is  not  objectionable, 
because  it  advances  a  single  solution  involving  two  related 
component  parts  to  meet  a  single  problem :  — 

Resolved  :  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  should 
be  elected  for  a  term  of  six  years  and  be  ineligible  for  reelection. 

The  following  proposition,  though  perhaps  technically 
within  the  rule,  is  nevertheless  objectionable,  because  the 
single  sweeping  program  for  the  solution  of  a  single  problem 
involves  too  many  diverse  and  complicated  component  parts : 

Resolved :  That  the  present  income-tax  laws  shoidd  be  abol- 
ished by  substituting  for  them  a  program  of  international  dis- 
armament, and  a  system  of  taxation  that  provides  for  tempo- 


14  Beginning  Principles 

rary  needs  by  a  sales  tax,  a  tax  on  money  in  banks,  and  a  pro- 
vision in  the  franchises  of  public  utility  corporations  that  the 
government  shall  claim  a  fixed  per  cent  of  their  gross  earnings, 
to  be  followed  eventually  by  the  adoption  of  the  single  tax. 

The  Proposition  Made  Specific.  —  The  second  require- 
ment for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be 
specific.  This  requirement  means  that  the  proposition  should 
be  as  free  as  possible  from  vague  and  sweeping  generalities. 

A  debatable  generalization  is  among  the  most  difficult 
of  all  propositions  to  establish  and  is  often  used  merely  to 
hide  the  actual  proposition  to  be  discussed.  The  reasons, 
therefore,  for  insisting  that  a  proposition  be  specific  are : 

1.  To  prevent  the  Affirmative  from  assuming  a  burden 
of  proof  too  great  for  it  to  carry ;  —  and 

2.  To  prevent  the  tricky  practice  of  concealing  from  the 
Negative  the  actual  proposition  to  be  upheld  by  the  Affirm- 
ative. 

To  make  a  proposition  specific,  each  general  term  within 
it  should  be  replaced  by  a  specific  term  or  be  limited  in 
meaning  by  modifying  expressions  that  make  plain  all  that 
it  implies. 

The  following  proposition  is  not  specific,  in  that  it  em- 
ploys the  sweeping  general  term  all  cities  in  the  United  States  : 

Resolved:  That  all  cities  in  the  United  States  should  be 
organized  under  a  city-manager  form  of  government. 

This  proposition  forces  the  Affirmative  to  assume  too 
great  a  burden  of  proof.  It  would,  therefore,  be  greatly  im- 
proved if  the  general  term  all  cities  were  replaced  by  some 
such  specific  term  as  Galesburg,  Illinois. 

The  following  proposition  is  not  specific,  in  that  it  em- 
ploys the  general  term  further,  without  specifying  the  type 
of  restriction  that  the  Affirmative  actually  intends  to  ad- 


Choosing  the  Subject  15 

vocate.  Such  a  generality  makes  possible  the  concealment 
from  the  Negative  of  the  actual  specific  proposition  that  must 
eventually  represent  the  position  of  the  Affirmative : 

Resolved :  That  immigration  into  the  United  States  from 
Southeastern  Europe  should  be  further  restricted. 

This  proposition  would  be  much  improved  if  it  were 
altered  to  embody  some  definite  plan  like  the  following : 

Resolved :  That  the  United  States  should  further  restrict 
immigration  from  Southeastern  Europe  by  establishing  a 
commission  to  regulate  the  number  of  immigrants  from  that 
region  according  to  the  demand  for  their  labor  in  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country. 

The  Proposition  Made  Clear.  —  The  third  requirement 
for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be  perfectly 
clear.  The  purpose  of  this  requirement  is  of  course  to  pre- 
vent all  quibbling  about  the  meaning  of  the  question  for 
debate.  To  make  the  proposition  clear,  no  term  should 
be  employed  in  it  that  may  be  interpreted  with  a  double 
meaning;  and  the  main  thought  in  the  proposition  should 
never  be  made  doubtful  by  being  expressed  in  some  subor- 
dinate grammatical  construction. 

To  illustrate :  The  following  proposition  is  not  clear, 
because  it  employs  the  term  right,  which  may  be  interpreted 
to  mean  either  moral  right  or  legal  right : 

Resolved  :  That  the  United  States  has  no  right  to  prohibit 
the  moderate  use  of  light  wines  and  beers. 

The  following  proposition  is  also  not  clear,  because  the 
main  thought  in  the  proposition  is  placed  in  a  subordinate 
grammatical  construction : 

Resolved:  That  employers  as  a  body  should  recognize  the 
principle  of  collective  bargaining  through  representatives  of 
labor's  own  choice. 


16  Beginning  Principles 

This  proposition  would  be  much  improved  if  it  were 
altered  to  read  as  follows: 

Resolved  :  That  employers  as  a  body  should  recognize  the 
principle  that  in  collective  bargaining  labor  should  be  unre- 
stricted in  the  choice  of  its  representatives. 

The  Proposition  Made  Concise.  —  The  fourth  require- 
ment for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be 
concise.  The  longer  a  proposition  is,  the  more  likely  it  is 
to  be  misunderstood;  and,  hence,  every  unnecessary  word 
should  be  eliminated;  but  no  expression  should  be  sacri- 
ficed that  is  positively  essential  to  convey  the  exact  meaning 
of  the  question  in  dispute.  Though  conciseness  is  desir- 
able in  the  wording  of  a  proposition,  it  is  secondary,  never- 
theless, to  the  requirement  that  the  proposition  be  specific. 

The  Proposition  Made  Positive.  —  The  fifth  require- 
ment for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that  it  be 
positive.  In  other  words,  negative  constructions  should 
be  eliminated  as  far  as  possible  from  the  terms  employed 
in  the  proposition. 

The  reason  for  this  requirement  is  of  course  obvious; 
for,  if  the  Affirmative  of  the  proposition  is  in  effect  a  nega- 
tion, and  if  the  Negative  of  the  proposition  is  in  effect  an 
affirmation,  great  confusion  concerning  the  respective  sides 
in  the  controversy  is  likely  to  arise ;  since  with  such  a 
proposition  the  Affirmative  seems  to  deny  and  the  Nega- 
tive seems  to  affirm. 

To  illustrate :  Confusion  is  likely  to  arise  from  the  use 
of  a  negative  term  in  the  following  proposition  because  in 
this  proposition  the  Affirmative  supports  a  negation  and 
the  Negative  in  effect  supports  an  affirmation : 

Resolved  :  That  the  Transportation  Act  of  1920  is  not  a 
success. 


Choosing  the  Subject  17 

This  proposition  would  be  greatly  improved  if  it  were 
altered  to  read : 

Resolved :  That  the  Transportation  Act  of  1920  is  a 
failure. 

The  requirement  that  a  proposition  be  positive  in  phrase- 
ology is  not  absolutely  imperative;  for  in  some  instances 
there  is  no  positive  term  that  can  be  substituted  for  the 
negative  term,  and  in  other  instances  it  is  impossible  to 
make  the  terms  of  the  proposition  positive  and  at  the  same 
time  place  the  burden  of  proof  where  it  belongs  on  the 
Affirmative.  This  requirement,  therefore,  frequently  has  to 
yield  to  the  exigencies  of  the  language  and  to  the  more  im- 
portant requirement  about  placing  the  burden  of  proof. 

The  Proposition  Made  Unprejudiced.  —  The  sixth  re- 
quirement for  the  phraseology  of  the  proposition  is  that 
it  be  unprejudiced.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  propo- 
sition shall  not  contain  matter  that  touches  the  prejudices 
of  the  speakers  and  the  audience  in  debate;  but  it  does 
mean  that  the  proposition  must  contain  no  modifying 
expressions  applied  to  its  principal  terms  about  the  appli- 
cation of  which  there  may  be  controversy,  and  which  if 
accepted  as  applied  would  in  themselves  determine  the  con- 
troversy. In  other  words  the  proposition  must  not  contain 
within  itself  matter  that  creates  a  pre-judgment,  that  is, 
a  judgment  in  advance  of  the  debate,  concerning  the  truth 
of  the  question  for  debate. 

Modifying  expressions  that  prejudice  a  proposition  very 
commonly  assume  the  form  of  so-called  question-begging 
epithets. 

For  example,  the  question-begging  epithet  thoroughly 
inadequate  as  employed  in  the  following  proposition  makes 
the  proposition  prejudiced ; 


18  Beginning  Principles 

Resolved  :  That  municipal  governments  throughout  the 
United  States  should  increase  the  thoroughly  inadequate  sala- 
ries of  public-school  teachers. 

Burden  of  Proof  on  the  Affirmative  of  the  Proposition.  — 

The  seventh  and  last  requirement  for  the  phraseology  of 
the  proposition  is  that  it  must  place  the  burden  of  proof 
on  the  Affirmative.  This  means  that  the  proposition  must 
be  phrased  so  as  to  make  the  Affirmative  advocate  some 
change  in  prevailing  opinion  or  prevailing  conditions.  Un- 
less the  proposition  is  so  phrased,  the  first  speech  in  debate, 
which  is  always  given  by  the  Affirmative,  will  fail  utterly 
to  provoke  a  controversy. 

The  burden  of  proof  on  a  proposition  may  be  defined  as 
the  obligation  resting  on  a  debater  to  produce  evidence 
and  argument  in  support  of  his  proposition  when  what  he 
affirms  is  contrary  to  prevailing  opinion  or  prevailing  con- 
ditions. 

If  a  proposition  is  so  phrased  that  it  agrees  with  prevail- 
ing opinion  or  prevailing  conditions,  then  it  is  said  to  have 
the  presumption.  This  means  that  the  proposition  may  be 
presumed  to  be  true  until  proved  false,  or  to  be  right  until 
proved  wrong. 

The  burden  of  proof  and  the  presumption,  therefore,  are 
exactly  opposite  terms;  and  every  proposition  should  be 
so  phrased  as  to  put  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  Affirmative 
and  the  presumption  on  the  Negative. 

To  illustrate :  The  following  proposition  gives  the  pre- 
sumption to  the  Affirmative  and  the  burden  of  proof  to  the 
Negative,  because  it  agrees  with  prevailing  opinion  and 
prevailing  conditions,  and  hence  is  poorly  phrased : 

Resolved :  That  in  the  United  States  women  should  be  given 
equal  suffrage  rights  with  men. 


Choosing  the  Subject  19 

This  proposition  would  be  correctly  phrased  in  respect 
to  the  burden  of  proof  and  the  presumption,  if  it  were  made 
to  read  as  follows : 

Resolved:  That  the  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution 
granting  equal  suffrage  to  women  should  be  repealed. 

Sources  of  Propositions  for  Debate.  —  Propositions  em- 
ployed in  debate  are  derived  commonly  from  two  sources. 
Either  they  are  discovered  ready-made,  or  they  are  for- 
mulated from  some  general  topic  of  discussion. 

Sources  of  Ready-Made  Propositions.  —  For  the  dis- 
covery of  ready-made  propositions,  the  student  may  turn 
to  two  different  sources.  One  of  these  is  found  in  the  lists 
of  propositions  published  in  the  appendices  of  books  on 
argumentation  and  debate;  and  the  other  is  in  controver- 
sial articles  in  newspapers,  magazines,  and  pamphlets. 

The  first  of  these  sources  is  likely  to  prove  unsatisfactory 
because  printed  lists  of  propositions  soon  become  anti- 
quated. The  student,  therefore,  in  most  cases  will  depend 
upon  controversial  articles  in  newspapers,  magazines,  and 
pamphlets. 

The  most  prolific  source  of  good  ready-made  proposi- 
tions will  probably  be  found  in  the  editorial  pages  of  the 
best  newspapers  and  periodicals,  in  contributed  articles 
that  appear  in  current-event  magazines,  and  in  the  published 
platforms  of  political  parties  and  similar  organizations. 

Formulation  of  Propositions  for  Debate.  —  Since  propo- 
sitions are  not  always  found  ready-made,  but  are  suggested 
rather  by  some  general  topic  of  discussion,  the  student  of 
debate  ought  to  be  able  to  formulate  a  proposition  for  him- 
self. 

The  process  involved  in  the  formulation  of  a  proposition 
consists  of  four  steps  as  follows : 


20  Beginning  Principles 

1.  The  selection  of  a  general  problem. 

2.  The  selection  of  a  specific  problem  included  within 

the  more  general  problem. 

3.  The  drafting  of  a  declarative  sentence  expressing  a 

solution  of  the  specific  problem. 

4.  The  revision  of  the  proposition  according  to  the  re- 

quirements for  subject  matter  and  phraseology. 

For  example,  under  the  first  step  in  the  process  of  for- 
mulating a  proposition,  the  debater  might  say  he  was  in- 
terested in : 

The  Problem  of  Labor  vs.  Capital. 

Under  the  second  step,  he  might  select  the  particular 
phase  of  this  general  problem  represented  in  the  more  spe- 
cific problem  of : 

How  the  public  is  to  be  protected  from  injury  in  the  strife 
of  these  two  factions. 

Under  the  third  step,  he  might  draft  a  declarative  sen- 
tence to  the  effect  that : 

The  Kansas  Court  of  Industrial  Relations  offers  a  solu- 
tion of  the  problem. 

Under  the  fourth  step,  he  might  revise  this  proposition 
to  read  as  follows : 

Resolved:  That  the  State  of  Illinois  should  establish  a  court 
essentially  similar  to  the  Kansas  Court  of  Industrial  Rela- 
tions. 

Two  Common  Types  of  Proposition.  —  The  two  most 
common  types  of  proposition  encountered  in  debate,  for 
which  very  different  methods  of  proof  are  demanded,  are : 

1.  Propositions  of  Fact 

2.  Propositions  of  Policy 

Propositions  of  Fact.  —  A  proposition  of  fact  consists  of 
any  statement  that  affirms  or  denies:  (1)   The  existence  of 


Choosing  the  Subject  21 

things ;  (2)  the  occurrence  of  acts ;  (3)  the  classification  of 
objects;  or  (4)  the  connection  of  events. 

The  following  statements  are  examples  of  propositions 
of  fact : 

Resolved  :   That  there  is  such  a  thing  as  telepathy. 

Resolved  :  That  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  of  Shakespeare. 

Resolved  :   That  Aaron  Burr  was  guilty  of  treason. 

Resolved  :  That  the  World  War  was  the  result  of  mistakes 
made  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna. 

Propositions  of  Policy.  —  A  proposition  of  policy  consists 
of  any  statement  that  affirms  or  denies  that  a  specified 
course  of  action,  in  preference  to  other  possible  courses  of 
action,  should  be  adopted. 

The  following  statement  is  an  example  of  a  proposition 
of  policy : 

Resolved:  That  New  York  State  should  abolish  the  system 
of  popular  election  of  judges. 

Propositions  of  Policy  Best  Suited  for  Debate.  —  In  de- 
bate on  propositions  of  policy  many  different  propositions 
of  fact  must  become  subjects  of  controversy.  Propositions 
of  policy,  therefore,  are  broader  in  scope  than  individual 
propositions  of  fact  and  afford  far  greater  opportunities  for 
practice  in  debate.  For  this  reason  they  should  be  pre- 
ferred to  propositions  of  fact  in  the  choice  of  subjects  for 
debate. 

Summary.  — To  summarize  the  theory  pertaining  to  the 
proposition  as  subject  of  debate,  it  may  be  said  that,  if  the 
debater  is  to  choose  a  proposition  wisely,  he  should  know : 

1 .  What  a  proposition  is ; 

2.  How  it  differs  from  subjects  commonly  employed  in 

non-argumentative  types  of  discourse ; 


22  Beginning  Principles 

3.  Why  it  is  important : 

4.  What  requirements  it  should  meet  both  in  regard  to 

subject  matter  and  in  regard  to  phraseology ; 

5.  Where  it  may  be  found ; 

6.  How  it  may  be  formulated ;    and 

7.  Which  of  its  two  principal  types  is  to  be  preferred  for 

practice  in  debate. 


CHAPTER  III 

ASSEMBLING   THE   PROOF1 

Assembling  the  Proof  the  Second  Step  in  Debate.  —  After 
the  choice  of  a  proper  subject  for  debate,  no  time  should  be 
lost  by  the  advocates  of  either  side  in  proceeding  at  once  to 
assemble  proof  in  support  of  their  opposing  views.  The 
second  step  in  preparation  for  debate,  therefore,  may  be 
known  as  the  process  of  assembling  proof. 

Value  of  Well-Ordered  Plan  of  Procedure  in  Assembling 
Proof.  —  No  part  of  the  preparation  for  debate  is  more  essen- 
tial to  success  than  the  process  of  assembling  proof,  and  yet 
no  one  of  the  many  processes  employed  in  debate  is  more 
commonly  undertaken  in  a  haphazard  way. 

A  very  common  practice  among  debaters,  for  example,  in 
an  investigation  of  their  subject  is  to  go  at  once  to  a  library ; 
pick  from  the  shelves  any  books  that  may  contain  articles 
relating  to  their  subject;  read  voluminously  until  they  are 
exhausted ;  take  many  notes ;  and  then  consider  their  prepa- 
ration to  be  complete. 

This  method  of  preparation  often  leads  the  debater  to  read 
much  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject ;  to  cover  again 
and  again  the  same  points  in  controversy ;  and  to  miss  others 
altogether  that  may  be  much  more  important.  Then,  finally, 
he  awakens  to  a  realization,  when  it  may  be  too  late,  that  he 
is  unprepared  to  meet  his  opponent  on  some  of  the  most  vital 
points  that  may  arise  in  the  debate. 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Assembling  the  Proof,  see  Appendix   A, 

23 


24  Beginning  Principles 

The  result  of  such  a  haphazard  method  of  procedure  is  to 
make  many  inexperienced  debaters  regard  the  process  of 
assembling  proof  as  one  of  the  most  uninteresting,  blind,  and 
discouraging  problems  to  be  faced  in  the  whole  art  of  debate. 

This  process,  however,  when  undertaken  according  to  a 
definite,  well-ordered  plan  of  procedure,  need  be  neither  un- 
interesting, nor  blind,  nor  discouraging;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, may  be  one  of  the  most  highly  interesting,  clear,  and 
even  fascinating  processes  that  the  debater  must  employ. 

Plan  of  Procedure  in  Assembling  Proof.  —  A  generally 
approved  and  well-ordered  plan  of  procedure  in  assembling 
proof  involves  the  following  steps  : 

1.  A  Definition  of  Terms  Involved  in  the  Proposition ; 

2.  The  Construction  of  a  Bibliography ; 

3.  The  Establishment  of  Guides  to  Direct  Research ; 

4.  The  Adoption  of  a  Systematic  Method  of  Note-taking ; 

5.  A  Study  of  Both  Sides  of  the  Question ; 

6.  The  Arrangement  of  Proof  in  Chains  of  Reasoning ; 

7.  A  Trial  of  Proof  in  a  Preliminary  Discussion ;     and 

8.  A  Repetition  of  the  Foregoing  Process  for  Every  Sub- 

head in  the  Various  Chains  of  Reasoning. 

Definition  of  Terms. — The  first  effort  of  the  debater  in 
the  actual  work  of  investigation  should  always  be  to  under- 
stand the  exact  meaning  of  his  proposition ;  for  any  failure 
to  interpret  fully  and  accurately  the  meaning  of  a  subject  for 
debate  is  almost  sure  to  result  in  inadequate  or  misdirected 
preparation. 

This  step  in  preparation  for  debate  is  called  the  definition 
of  terms ,  but  it  might  just  as  accurately  be  called  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  terms;  because  it  demands  usually,  not 
only  a  concise  definition  such  as  is  found  in  dictionaries,  but 


Assembling  the  Proof  25 

also  a  more  elaborate  and  detailed  explanation  such  as  is 
found  in  encyclopedias. 

The  student  of  debate,  therefore,  should  undertake  the  pro- 
cess of  definition,  first,  by  consulting  dictionaries,  and,  second, 
by  consulting  encyclopedias  or  other  works  of  general  reference. 

Books  of  general  reference  with  which  every  debater  should 
be  familiar  are : 

The  Statesman's  Year  Book; 

The  Congressional  Record; 

The  United  States  Census  Reports; 

Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States;    and 

The  World  Almanac. 

When  full  and  accurate  definitions  cannot  be  obtained  from 
dictionaries,  encyclopedias,  and  books  of  general  reference, 
then  the  student  should  consult  technical  treatises,  official 
documents,  and  published  abstracts  or  synopses  of  new  and 
complicated  subjects. 

Technical  treatises  within  any  special  field  may  be  dis- 
covered under  the  title  of  this  field  in  library  catalogues. 

Official  documents  may  be  obtained  through  public  libra- 
ries, or  by  application  to  the  departments  issuing  such  docu- 
ments, or  in  the  case  of  federal  documents  by  application  to 
one's  Congressman. 

Abstracts  and  synopses  of  subjects  that  arise  in  current 
events  may  usually  be  found  in  newspapers  and  periodicals. 

The  debater  should  be  familiar  with  each  of  these  various 
sources  of  definition ;  for  at  one  time  or  another  he  may  be 
called  upon  to  use  them  all. 

Bibliography.  —  After  obtaining  a  general  knowledge  of  a 
subject  by  defining  its  terms,  the  debater  is  then  prepared  to 
undertake  a  more  specific  investigation  of  his  problem.  To 
make  this  investigation  thorough,  however,  he  should  begin 


26  Beginning  Principles 

as  early  as  possible  to  construct  a  complete  bibliography ;  for, 
in  this  way,  he  may  lay  out  in  advance  a  comprehensive  course 
of  study. 

A  good  debater's  bibliography,  when  complete,  will  con- 
tain much  valuable  information,  such  as,  for  example,  the 
names  of  books  or  articles  containing  material  on  his  subject, 
the  names  of  their  authors,  the  date  of  publication,  and  exact 
page  references,  with  also  some  statement  about  the  value 
and  application  of  the  material  presented,  and  some  statement 
concerning  the  qualifications  of  the  writer  as  an  authority  on 
his  subject. 

For  the  purpose  of  constructing  bibliographies,  the  debater 
should  be  familiar  with  the  following  sources  of  reference  : 

Bibliographies  appended  to  articles  in  encyclopedias ; 

Library  catalogues ; 

Poole's  Index  to  Periodical  Literature; 

The  Reader's  Guide  to  Periodical  Literature;  and 

The  New  York  Times  Index. 

When  an  article  or  book  appearing  in  a  bibliography  has 
been  found  to  contain  valuable  material,  then  the  debater 
should  seek  to  place  against  it  in  the  bibliography  some  com- 
ment concerning  the  qualifications  of  its  writer  as  an  authority. 
This  information  may  be  obtained  usually  in  such  standard 
works  as: 

Lippincott's  Biographical  Dictionary; 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography; 

Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography; 

Who's  Who; 

Who's  Who  in  America;  and 

The  Congressional  Directory. 

Guides  for  Directing  Research.  —  Before  the  debater 
proceeds  very  far  in  reading  the  books  and  articles  contained 


Assembling  the  Proof  27 

in  his  bibliography,  he  will  feel  the  necessity  of  having  some 
definite  guides  in  his  research  to  prevent  him  from  reading 
over  and  over  again  the  same  information  as  it  is  presented 
by  different  writers,  and  to  prevent  him  also  from  overlooking 
important  information  that  might  escape  him  if  his  reading 
were  governed  by  chance. 

These  guides  for  his  research  will  differ  according  as  his 
proposition  is  a  proposition  of  fact  or  a  proposition  of  policy. 
In  investigating  a  proposition  of  fact,  the  debater  should 
seek  answers  to  the  following  questions : 

1.  Are  there  any  good  witnesses  or  authorities  who  vouch 

for  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition  ? 

2.  Is  there  any  general  theory  by  which  the    truth  or 

falsity  of  the  proposition  could  be  demonstrated  ? 

3.  Are  there  any  facts  prior  to  the  alleged  fact  in  the 

proposition  that  would  prove  the  alleged  fact  to  be 
true  or  false  ? 

4.  Are  there  any  facts  subsequent  to  the  alleged  fact  in 

the  proposition  that  would  prove  the  alleged  fact  to 
be  true  or  false  ? 

5.  Are  there  any  examples  or  analogous  instances  that 

would  prove  the  alleged  fact  to  be  true  or  false  ? 

6.  Is  there  any  counter  proposition  that  is  more  likely  to 

be  true? 

In  investigating  a  proposition  of  policy,  the  debater 
should  seek  answers  to  the  following  questions  : 

1.  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  change  in  policy? 

2.  Wherein   does   the  proposed    policy   differ    materially 

from  the  present  policy  ? 

3.  Is  there  any  need  of  a  change  from  the  present  policy  ? 

4.  Would  the  proposed  policy  accomplish  its  purpose  ? 


28  Beginning  Principles 

5.  Would  the  proposed  policy  be  more  detrimental  than 

beneficial  ? 

6.  Would  some  substitute  for  the  proposed  policy  accom- 

plish its  purpose  more  satisfactorily  than  the  pro- 
posed policy  ? 

Note-Taking.  —  Little  need  be  said  to  experienced  debaters 
about  the  necessity  of  taking  notes  on  valuable  material 
related  to  their  subject,  but  much  should  be  said  to  beginners 
about  the  prime  importance  of  this  part  of  their  work. 

The  chief  faults  of  beginners  in  this  respect  are  :  that  they 
trust  too  much  to  memory ;  they  fail  to  note  the  sources  of 
their  information  for  future  reference  and  verification ;  they 
copy  slavishly  from  others  instead  of  digesting  material  to 
get  its  vital  points ;  and  they  are  then  satisfied  to  leave  their 
notes  in  such  a  disorganized  form  that  soon  the  debaters, 
themselves,  cannot  make  use  of  them. 

The  first  principles  of  note-taking  are,  therefore,  that  the 
debater  should  always  approach  his  work  of  investigation  with 
note-paper  and  pencil  in  hand ;  he  should  allow  no  material 
to  pass  without  a  note  if  it  has  any  possible  value ;  he  should 
always  record  against  material  the  exact  source  from  which 
it  is  taken ;  i.  e.,  for  example,  the  author,  book,  volume,  and 
page ;  and  then  instead  of  writing  out  in  full  the  information 
he  has  obtained,  he  should  condense  it,  without  altering  its 
meaning,  to  get  only  the  part  that  is  valuable. 

At  first,  notes  should  be  taken  in  scrap  form,  but  they 
should  never  be  allowed  to  remain  in  this  shape ;  for  many 
notes,  no  matter  how  valuable  they  are  in  themselves,  if  they 
are  left  in  a  state  of  confusion,  are  often  more  of  a  hindrance 
than  a  help  to  the  debater. 

A  convenient  and  systematic  method  of  keeping  notes  is  to 
employ  a  loose-leaf  notebook  or  card-index  with  appropriate 


Assembling  the  Proof  29 

headings   for   each   page,    or  each    card,    to    catalogue   the 
material. 

Headings  that  may  be  employed  to  advantage  in  taking 
notes  on  any  proposition  are  : 

1.  Definitions 

2.  Bibliography 

3.  History  of  the  Case 

4.  Authorities 

5.  Theories 

6.  Examples,  Illustrations,  Precedents 

7.  Statistics 

8.  Counter  propositions 

Special  headings  that  may  be  employed  with  peculiar 
advantage  in  taking  jiotes  on  propositions  of  policy  are : 

1.  Defects  of  Present  Policy 

2.  Operation  of  Proposed  Policy 

3.  Beneficial  Results  of  Proposed  Policy 

4.  Detrimental  Results  of  Proposed  Policy 

5.  Comparative  Benefits  of  Proposed  and  Substitute  Pol- 

icies 

6.  Comparative  Detriments  of  Proposed  and  Substitute 

Policies 
These  headings,  of  course,  are  not  suggested  as  exhaustive  ; 
but  they,  at  least,  indicate  the  general  fields  of  research  into 
which  the  debater  should  push  his  investigation.  As  more 
specific  topics  are  discovered  under  these  general  heads,  they 
should  be  added  to  the  cataloguing  system. 

The  Study  of  Both  Sides.  —  If  the  debater  has  constructed 
a  complete  bibliography  and  then  has  followed  faithfully 
the  system  of  guides  and  note-taking  recommended  above, 
there  is  little  excuse  for  his  failure  to  become  acquainted 
with  all  the  proof  that  may  be  advanced  on  both  sides  of  his 


SO  Beginning  Principles 

case ;  and  yet  no  mistake  is  more  common,  especially  among 
beginners,  than  to  confine  their  research  only  to  their  own 
side  of  the  question. 

Such  one-sided  preparation  is  generally  due  to  the  fact 
that  a  debater  becomes  so  intent  on  proving  his  own  case  that 
he  ignores  the  possibility  of  opposition ;  or  he  scorns  so 
thoroughly  all  the  views  of  his  opponents  that  he  disdains 
even  to  consider  them. 

Neglect  to  examine  an  opponent's  case,  however,  often  leads 
to  the  most  disastrous  consequences;  because  it  leaves  the 
debater,  in  emergencies,  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  inspira- 
tion ;  and  nothing  in  debate  is  quite  so  unreliable  as  inspira- 
tion. 

Instead  of  ignoring  or  disdaining  an  opponent's  case,  a 
debater  should  seek  rather  to  understand  it  thoroughly  in 
order  that  he  may  know  upon  what  points  there  is  a  direct 
clash  of  opinion ;  and  also  in  order  that  he  may  prepare  his 
own  case  to  meet  and  overthrow  the  opposition. 

One  of  the  most  important  principles  to  be  observed,  there- 
fore, in  the  use  of  a  bibliography  for  the  purpose  of  assem- 
bling proof,  is  that  the  debater  should  examine,  not  only 
references  that  are  favorable  to  his  particular  side  of  the 
question,  but  all  references  whether  favorable  to  one  side  or 
the  other. 

Chains  of  Reasoning.  —  By  following  the  guides  for  re- 
search and  by  reading  widely  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  a 
debater  may  gather  much  valuable  proof.  Then,  if  he  assorts 
this  proof  as  suggested  under  appropriate  heads  in  note- 
taking,  he  may  preserve  it  in  such  a  way  that  its  intended 
application  will  always  be  apparent. 

Proof  that  is  left  in  the  form  of  ordinary  notes,  however, 
cannot  easily  be  inspected  to  determine  whether  it  is  ade- 


Assembling  the  Proof  31 


xo 


quate  in  every  detail;  and,  hence,  some  further  system  of 
organizing  proof  is  necessary  to  guide  the  debater  in  an  ex- 
haustive investigation  of  his  subject.  Such  a  system  is  pro- 
vided in  what  may  be  called  chains  of  reasoning. 

A  chain  of  reasoning  is  a  system  of  recording  proof  by  re- 
ducing it  to  a  series  of  propositions  arranged  in  the  form  of 
heads  and  subheads  in  such  a  way  that  each  subhead  reads 
as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of  the  major  head  immediately 
above  it. 

An  illustration  of  the  method  by  which  proof  is  reduced 
to  chains  of  reasoning  is  found  in  the  treatment  of  the  follow- 
ing excerpt,  taken  from  an  article  by  Louis  Graves,  entitled 
Relative  Values  in  Prohibition,  published  in  the  Atlantic 
Monthly  for  April  1921 : 

"  There  is  no  blinking  the  truth,"  says  this  article ;  "  the 
Volstead  Act  is  being  generally  violated.  But  say  the  pro- 
hibitionists, so  is  every  law.  Checks  are  forged, '  houses  are 
set  fire  to,  men  are  murdered,  property  is  stolen  —  the  news-  | 
papers  tell  of  such  things  every  day.  Because  these  crimes 
are  committed,  no  one  proposes  that  the  laws  against  them 
be  repealed.  Why  then  seek  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  dry 
law  because  it  is  not  enforced  to  perfection?  So  runs  the 
reasoning.  The  final  point  is  the  familiar  list  of  benefits  that 
have  flowed  from  prohibition  even  in  regions  where  it  was 
received  unwillingly  —  fewer  arrests,  less  vagrancy,  a  decrease 
in  the  population  of  almshouses  and  asylums,  a  bigger  share 
of  the  family's  weekly  revenue  available  for  the  wife 
and  children,  better  economic  and  social  conditions  all 
around.,, 

This  material,  when  reduced  to  chains  of  reasoning,  takes 
the  following  form : 

I.  The  laws  providing  for  national  prohibition  should  not  be 
repealed;  for 


32  Beginning  Principles 

A .  There  is  no  need  of  a  change  from  our  present  policy ;  for 
1.  The  failure  to  enforce  the  Volstead  Act  to  perfec- 
tion does  not  involve  an  evil  sufficiently  serious  to 
warrant  its  repeal ;  for 

(a)   When  other  laws  fail  to  eliminate  the  crimes 
they  are  intended  to  check,  no   one   thinks 
it  necessary  to  repeal  them ;  for 
(I')       No   one   thinks    of  repealing  the  law 
against   forgery   on   the  ground   that, 
daily,  checks  are  being  forged ;  and 
(IF)     Similarly  no  one  thinks  of  repealing  the 
law  against  arson  on  the  ground  that, 
daily,  houses  are  being  set  on  fire ;  and 
(III7)  Similarly  no  one  thinks  of  repealing  the 
law    against    murder    on    the    ground 
that,  daily,    murders    are   being   com- 
mitted; and 
(IV)    Similarly   no   one   thinks  of   repealing 
the  law  against  thieving  on  the  ground 
that,  daily,  property  is  being  stolen. 

B.  A  repeal  of  the  prohibition  laws  would  bring  about 
many  detrimental  effects;  for 

1.  A  repeal  of  these  laws  would  destroy  many  eco- 
nomic and  social  benefits  that  have  arisen  from 
prohibition;  for 

(a)  A  repeal  of  these    laws    would   increase  the 
number  of  arrests ;  for 

(F)     Prohibition     has     operated     to    reduce 
arrests. 

(b)  A  repeal  of  these  laws  would    increase    the 
amount  of  vagrancy  ;  for 

(I')     Prohibition  has  operated  to  reduce  va- 
grancy. 


Assembling  the  Proof  33 

(c)  A  repeal  of  these  laws  would  increase  the  pop- 
ulation of  almshouses  and  asylums ;  for 

(I')   Prohibition  has  operated  to  reduce  the 
population  of  almshouses  and  asylums. 

(d)  A  repeal  of  these  laws  would  reduce  the  share 
of  the  family's  weekly  revenue  for  the  wife 
and  children ;  for 

(I')    Prohibition  has  operated  to  increase  the 
share  of  wife  and  children  in  the  family's 
♦    weekly  revenue. 

This  method  of  organizing  proof  is  especially  valuable  to 
the  debater  in  undertaking  an  exhaustive  study  of  his  sub- 
ject ;  because  it  enables  him  to  examine  each  step  in  his  rea- 
soning, and  to  determine  at  just  what  points  his  proof  needs 
further  development. 

Preliminary  Discussion.  —  The  very  best  means  of  deter- 
mining whether  proof  requires  further  development  are : 
First,  to  examine  it  carefully  in  chains  of  reasoning;  and 
then  to  subject  the  proof  in  these  chains  of  reasoning  to 
the  actual  test  of  preliminary  discussion. 

No  one  is  quite  so  keen  as  an  opponent  to  pick  out  the 
points  of  weakness  in  one's  proof ;  and,  hence,  the  first  duty 
of  a  debater  is  to  find  some  friend  who  will  be  a  merciless 
critic  and  a  savage  foe  of  all  that  he  has  to  say.  Let  these 
two  friends,  then,  struggle  over  every  point  that  is  advanced ; 
and  finally,  when  they  agree,  the  proof  that  is  selected  as  the 
outcome  of  such  controversy  will  usually  be  capable  of  meet- 
ing any  emergency  that  may  arise. 

Repetition  of  the  Process  for  Successive  Heads  in  Chains 
of  Reasoning.  —  The  first  seven  steps  suggested  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  chapter  for  orderly  procedure  in  assembling  proof 


34  Beginning  Principles 

provide  a  systematic  method  of  gathering  proof  for  any  prop- 
osition ;  and  if  these  several  steps  are  repeated  in  connection 
with  every  proposition  that  appears  in  the  debater's  various 
chains  of  reasoning,  then  the  debater  may  proceed  with  full 
assurance  that  the  preparation  of  his  case  is  complete. 


CHAPTER  IV 
MAKING   THE   SPEECH1 

Importance  of  the  Speech.  —  The  three  outstanding  prob- 
lems in  debate  are :  First,  choosing  the  subject ;  second, 
assembling  the  proof;  and  third,  making  the  speech.  Of 
these  three  problems,  that  of  making  the  speech  represents 
the  culmination  of  all  other  efforts  in  debate. 

No  one  of  these  problems  is,  of  course,  more  essential  than 
another ;  and  yet  the  problem  of  making  the  speech  must  be 
recognized  as  all-important;  since  the  others  are  merely 
preparatory  for  this;  and  since  success  or  failure  must  de- 
pend eventually  upon  the  way  in  which  this  problem  is  met. 

The  Beginner's  Difficulties  in  Making  the  Speech.  —  Mak- 
ing the  speech  presents  no  greater  difficulties  than  other  prob- 
lems in  debate ;  but  these  difficulties,  nevertheless,  are  fre- 
quently very  embarrassing,  especially  to  beginners ;  because 
they  do  not  know  how  the  speech  should  be  prepared ;  what 
method  of  presentation  should  be  adopted ;  or  what  style  of 
speaking  should  be  cultivated.  The  difficulties  to  be  con- 
sidered, therefore,  in  the  problem  of  speech-making  revolve 
about : 

1.  The  Preparation  of  the  Speech ; 

2.  The  Method  of  Presenting  the  Speech ;  and 

3.  The  Style  to  Be  Cultivated  in  the  Speech. 


For  lesson  assignments  on  Making  the  Speech,  see  Appendix  A. 

is 


36  Beginning  Principles 

I.  Preparation  of  the  Speech 

The  Preparation  of  the  Speech.  —  The  two  most  valuable 
suggestions  that  can  be  made  concerning  the  preparation  of  a 
speech  are :  First,  that  it  should  be  built  around  only  three 
or  four  main  points ;  and  second,  that  it  must  be  composed 
from  an  outline. 

Value  of  Having  Only  Three  or  Four  Main  Points.  —  The 
value  of  having  only  three  or  four  main  points  consists  in  the 
fact  that  audiences  generally  cannot  carry  in  mind  any  larger 
number  of  points ;  and,  within  any  ordinary  time-limits  for 
speaking,  no  more  than  this  number  of  points  can  be  ade- 
quately treated. 

Selection  of  the  Main  Points.  —  The  first  problem  in 
preparing  for  a  speech,  therefore,  is  to  select  the  main  points 
about  which  the  speech  is  to  be  built.  This  selection  may 
very  easily  be  made :  First,  by  selecting  several  points  that 
may  be  used  to  summarize  the  proof  on  either  side ;  that  is, 
points  which  serve  as  main  heads  in  all  the  different  chains  of 
reasoning  leading  to  the  proof  or  the  disproof  of  the  proposi- 
tion; then  second,  by  selecting  from  these  summarizing 
points,  those  on  which  there  must  be  a  clash  of  opinion  be- 
tween the  parties ;  and  third,  by  selecting  from  these  points  of 
clash,  those  three  or  four  points  upon  which  the  speaker  has 
a  burden  of  proof.  Such  points  may  always  serve  as  satis- 
factory main  points  about  which  to  build  a  speech. 

Value  of  an  Outline.  —  The  second  most  valuable  sugges- 
tion for  preparing  a  speech  is  that  it  must  be  composed  from 
an  outline. 

This  suggestion  is,  of  course,  quite  familiar  to  all  students 
of  either  written  or  oral  composition ;  and  yet  it  cannot  be 
repeated  and  emphasized  too  often ;   for,  of  all  the  good  ad- 


Making  the  Speech  37 

vice  that  was  ever  given,  none  is  more  consistently  ignored 
than  this,  especially  by  beginners  in  writing  and  speaking, 
who  are  the  very  persons  who  need  it  most. 

Every  conceivable  method  is  employed  by  beginners  to 
avoid  carrying  out  this  suggestion.  Sometimes  speeches  are 
composed  without  any  outline  at  all ;  sometimes  the  outline 
is  made  after  the  speech  is  written  or  delivered ;  and  some- 
times a  partial  outline  is  attempted  and  then  thrown  away 
without  being  used. 

All  these  makeshifts  to  escape  the  task  of  planning  out 
one's  work  in  advance  are  adopted  with  the  thought  that  an 
outline  merely  adds  to  the  difficulty  of  preparation  without 
contributing  anything  to  the  final  result.  Such  a  theory, 
however,  is  contrary  to  general  experience,  and  the  beginner 
will  soon  realize  how  misleading  it  is,  after  he  has  failed  again 
and  again  to  say  in  a  speech  what  he  should  have  said  or  what 
he  hoped  to  say,  merely  because  he  refused  to  compose  his 
speech  from  an  outline. 

An  outline,  therefore,  is  valuable  to  a  debater,  because  it 
makes  him  prepare  in  advance  what  he  has  to  say.  It  makes 
him  realize  whether  or  not  he  has  anything  to  say ;  just  what 
he  has  to  say ;  the  order  in  which  he  should  say  it ;  and  how 
little  time  he  has  for  saying  any  of  it. 

Structural  Outlines  and  Brief-Outlines.  —  In  the  process 
of  building  an  outline  there  are  generally  two  distinct  stages 
of  development.  The  first  stage  is  that  in  which  the  general 
divisions  and  subdivisions  of  the  speech  are  established  ;  and 
the  second  stage  is  that  in  which  specific  material  is  intro- 
duced under  each  of  the  general  divisions  and  subdivisions. 

An  outline  in  the  first  stage  of  development  is  called  a 
structural  outline ;  and  an  outline  in  the  second  stage  is  called 
a  brief-outline. 


38  Beginning  Principles 

Main  Divisions  of  a  Structural  Outline.  — The  three  main 
divisions  of  a  speech  that  will  appear  in  a  structural  outline 
are: 

The  Introduction ; 

The  Discussion ;  and 

The  Conclusion. 

The  purpose  of  the  Introduction  is  to  announce  the  main 
points  in  controversy,  to  create  an  interest  in  these  points, 
and  to  make  plain  the  reasons  for  their  selection. 

The  purpose  of  the  Discussion  is  to  advance  proof  for,  or 
against,  the  main  points  in  controversy. 

The  purpose  of  the  Conclusion  is  to  recall  these  main 
points  in  controversy,  to  review  the  proof  offered  by  both 
sides  in  a  discussion  of  these  points,  and  to  appeal  for  a 
favorable  decision  on  the  proposition  as  it  has  been  proved 
or  disproved  by  these  points. 

Structural  Outline  of  the  Introduction.  —  A  structural  out- 
line for  the  Introduction  of  a  speech  will  usually  involve  the 
following  subdivisions  : 

Introduction 

1.  The  Importance  of  the  Case ; 

2.  The  History  of  the  Case ; 

3.  A  Definition  of  Terms ; 

4.  An  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  Matter ; 

5.  An  Exclusion  of  Admitted  Matter ; 

6.  A  Statement  of  Points  at  Issue ;  * 

7.  A  Statement  of  Points  to  Be  Proved  or  Disproved  by 

an  Opponent ;  and 

8.  A  Statement  of  Points  to  Be  Proved  in  One's  Own  Case. 


1  For  exhaustive  study  of  issues,  see  Chapter  III,  Part  III. 


Making  the  Speech  39 

The  outline  given  above  is  somewhat  elaborate,  because 
it  suggests  all  the  material  that  may  be  given  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  the  first,  or  opening,  speech  in  a  debate.  Under 
some  of  its  subdivisions,  little  or  nothing  need  be  said  in  some 
cases,  but  all  of  these  subdivisions  are  included  to  show  the 
general  order  in  which  the  various  points  should  be  taken  up. 

For  all  speeches  after  the  opening  speech,  the  outline  for  the 
Introduction  will  be  much  more  brief  than  that  given  above, 
because  the  debater  may  agree  with  many  of  the  statements 
made  by  preceding  speakers  under  the  topics  indicated, 
and  no  advantage  would  be  gained  from  a  mere  repetition  of 
these  statements.  The  general  order  in  which  any  of  these 
points  should  be  raised,  however,  is  the  same  for  all  Intro- 
ductions. 

Content  of  the  Outline  for  the  Discussion.  —  The  content 
of  the  outline  for  the  Discussion  in  a  speech  is  determined 
rigidly  by  the  points  announced  for  proof  or  disproof  in  the 
Introduction.  These  points  should  always  constitute  the 
main  points  in  the  Discussion,  and  all  other  points  should  be 
introduced  into  the  Discussion  only  as  subheadings  in  chains  of 
reasoning  leading  to  the  proof  of  these  main  points.  The  con- 
tent of  the  Discussion,  therefore,  will  consist  entirely  of  chains 
of  reasoning *  to  support  one  of  the  sides  in  the  controversy. 

Structural  Outline  of  the  Conclusion.  —  A  structural  out- 
line of  the  Conclusion  will  usually  involve  the  following  sub- 
divisions : 

Conclusion 

1.  A  Restatement  of  the  Points  at  Issue ; 

2.  A  Statement  of  the  Points  That  an  Opponent  Must 

Prove  or  That  He  Has  Failed  to  Prove ; 


Seepages  30-33. 


40  Beginning  Principles 

3.  A  Summary  of  Points  Proved  in  One's  Own  Case ;  and 

4.  An  Appeal  for  a  Favorable  Decision. 

Making  a  Brief-Outline.  —  The  development  of  a  struc- 
tural outline  into  a  brief-outline  demands  that  specific  ma- 
terial be  introduced  under  each  of  the  general  divisions  and 
subdivisions  of  the  structural  outline. 

If  this  material  is  to  be  intelligible,  however,  each  topic 
must  consist,  not  of  mere  catch-phrases,  but  of  a  complete 
single  sentence  or  proposition. 

In  the  Introduction  and  the  Conclusion,  the  main  topics 
will  consist  of  general  statements,  and  the  sub-topics  will 
consist  of  more  specific  statements  that  carry  out  the  thought 
expressed  in  the  general  topics  under  which  they  are  placed. 

In  the  Discussion,  the  topics  and  the  sub-topics  will  be 
arranged  in  such  a  way  that  each  sub-topic  will  read  as  a 
reason  for  the  truth  of  the  major  topic  immediately  above  it. 

The  Use  of  the  Outline  in  Composing  the  Speech.  —  When 
the  debater  has  completed  his  brief-outline,  then  he  may 
proceed  immediately  to  the  composition  of  his  speech,  either 
by  speaking  directly  from  his  outline,  or  by  writing  out  his 
speech  in  full. 

In  either  case  the  outline  will  be  used  in  much  the  same 
way;  for  each  of  the  main  topics  in  the  outline  will  pro- 
vide the  debater  with  a  topic  sentence  by  which  he  may 
begin  the  various  paragraphs  of  his  speech,  and  the  sub- 
topics under  each  main  topic  will  provide  him  with  the 
substance  for  his  paragraphs. 

If  the  debater  speaks  directly  from  his  outline,  he  will 
compose  his  speech  by  saying  over  and  over  again  in  various 
ways  the  matter  presented  under  each  main  topic,  until  he 
is  satisfied  that  he  will  never  need  to  be  at  a  loss  for  a  word 
or  phrase  to  convey  his  meaning  effectively.     If,  however, 


Making  the  Speech  41 

he  writes  out  his  speech  in  full,  he  will  perform  the  work  of 
composition  by  writing  and  rewriting  in  various  ways  the 
matter  presented  under  each  main  topic,  until  he  is  satisfied 
finally  that  his  mode  of  expression  conveys  his  meaning 
most  accurately  and  most  effectively. 

The  Use  of  the  Outline  in  Delivering  the  Speech.  —  The 
value  of  an  outline  does  not  cease,  however,  with  the  compo- 
sition of  a  speech,  but  extends  much  further  in  the  process 
of  speech-making.  If  the  speaker  wishes  to  be  entirely 
free  from  notes  while  delivering  his  speech,  he  will  do  well  to 
memorize  his  outline  in  whole  or  in  part,  so  that  at  all  times 
he  may  see  in  his  mind  the  points  he  has  touched  and  the 
points  yet  to  come.  This  is,  of  course,  the  only  safe  rule  for 
those  who  speak  without  notes  ;  but  it  is  also  very  helpful  to 
those  who  deliver  verbatim  a  memorized  written  speech. 

II.   Special  Preparation  for  Rebuttals 

Main  and  Rebuttal  Speeches.  —  Debate  involves  always 
the  use  of  two  very  different  types  of  speeches :  the  first 
being  known  as  a  main  speech;  and  the  second  being  known 
as  a  rebuttal  speech. 

A  main  speech  in  debate  denotes  a  speaker's  first  or  open- 
ing speech,  the  primary  purpose  of  which  is  to  advance  direct 
proof  for  the  truth  of  one  side  of  the  proposition. 

A  rebuttal  speech,  in  contrast  with  a  main  speech,  is  a 
speech  given  in  answer  to  a  preceding  speech.  This  type 
of  speech  represents  the  kind  of  speech  that  is  used  to  close 
a  debate. 

Special  Problems  in  Rebuttal  Speech.  —  A  rebuttal  speech 
generally  presents  to  a  beginner  one  of  his  most  puzzling  prob- 
lems ;  and,  hence,  this  type  of  speech  requires  special  con- 
sideration. 


42  Beginning  Principles 

The  one  rule  that  must  be  scrupulously  obeyed  in  making 
this  kind  of  speech  is :  That  no  new  proof  shall  be  included 
in  it  except  what  is  demanded  to  answer  the  proof  of  an  op- 
ponent. 

The  chief  problems  in  rebuttal  do  not  arise  from  this  re- 
striction, however;  but  rather  from  ignorance  on  the  part 
of  the  debater  concerning  how  much  of  his  opponent's  proof 
he  should  answer ;  what  method  he  should  employ  in  making 
his  answer ;  and  how  the  answer  may  be  incorporated  into  a 
finished  speech. 

How  Much  to  Answer  in  Rebuttal.  —  At  the  very  outset 
the  debater  must  be  made  to  realize  that  no  part  of  his  oppo- 
nent's proof  can  be  neglected.  All  of  it  must  be  taken  down  in 
notes  at  the  time  it  is  delivered,  and  all  of  it  must  be  answered. 
If  some  parts  of  an  opponent's  proof  have  made  a  deeper  im- 
pression than  other  parts,  these  should  be  given  most  atten- 
tion ;  but  no  part  of  an  opponent's  proof  should  be  neglected 
altogether.    The  only  safe  rule  to  follow  is  to  answer  all. 

Method  of  Making  a  Comprehensive  Rebuttal.  —  It  would 
be  impossible,  as  well  as  undesirable,  to  answer  individually 
each  statement  in  the  proof  of  one's  opponent,  and  no  such 
procedure  is  intended.  What  is  suggested,  is  that  the  de- 
bater should  group  the  various  items  of  his  opponent's  proof 
under  main  heads,  and  then  direct  his  answers  so  far  as  possi- 
ble against  these  more  important  points,  rather  than  against 
a  countless  number  of  subordinate  points.  In  this  way  a 
debater  may  answer  all  of  his  opponent's  proof ;  and  yet,  at 
the  same  time,  confine  his  answers  to  only  a  limited  number 
of  the  points  that  have  been  advanced. 

Typical  Answers  Employed  in  Rebuttal.  —  To  dispose  of 
points  in  an  opponent's  proof,  a  debater  must  employ  some 


Making  the  Speech  43 

one  of  the  three  distinct  answers  given  below ;  and  any  one 
of  these  answers,  when  applicable,  is  as  effective  as  another. 

The  first  answer  is :  To  exclude  a  point  from  consideration 
because  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question. 

The  second  answer  is :  To  admit  the  truth  of  a  point  and 
shift  the  debate  to  a  consideration  of  other  points  that  have 
greater  significance. 

The  third  answer  is :  To  meet  the  point  head-on ;  deny  its 
truth ;  and  prove  it  to  be  false. 

Structural  Outline  of  a  Rebuttal  Speech.  —  A  structural 
outline  that  may  be  used  in  rebuttal  speeches  will  usually 
involve  the  following  parts  : 

Introduction 

1.  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  Matter;  and 

2.  Exclusion  of  Admitted  Matter. 

Discussion 
1.   Disproof  of  Points  Remaining  at  Issue. 

Conclusion 

1.  Restatement  of  the  Points  at  Issue ; 

2.  A  Statement  of  Points  That  an  Opponent  Must  Prove 

or  Has  Failed  to  Prove ; 

3.  A  Summary  of  Points  Proved  in  One's  Own  Case ;  and 

4.  An  Appeal  for  a  Favorable  Decision. 

III.  Methods  of  Presenting  the  Speech 

Methods  of  Presenting  the  Speech.  —  With  beginners  a 
serious  problem  often  arises  concerning  what  method  should 
be  adopted  for  the  presentation  of  a  speech.  Hence,  it  is 
important  that  they  should  be  familiar  with  all  the  different 
methods  that  are  commonly  employed.    These  methods  are  : 


44  Beginning  Principles 

1.  The  Impromptu  Method ; 

2.  The  Reading  Method ; 

3.  The  Memory  Method ; 

4.  The  Mixed  Method ;  and 

5.  The  Extempore  Method. 

The  impromptu  method  consists  in  speaking  off-hand  with- 
out formal  preparation  either  in  thought  or  expression. 

The  reading  method  consists  in  reading  a  prepared  speech 
from  manuscript,  word  for  word,  as  it  is  written. 

/The  memory  method  consists  in  rendering  word  for  word  a 
speech  that  has  been  memorized. 

The  mixed  method  consists  in  part  of  the  memory  method 
and  in  part  of  the  extempore  method. 

The  extempore  method  consists  in  speaking  directly  from 
an  outline  without  any  predetermined  order  of  words. 

The  Extempore  Method  Best  Suited  to  Debate. —  Of 
these  five  methods,  each  has  its  advantages  and  its  disad- 
vantages ;  but,  all  things  being  considered,  the  one  method 
that  will  be  found  best  suited  to  debate  is  the  extempore 
method. 

The  impromptu  method  should  be  used  only  by  the  most 
experienced  speakers  and  then  only  when  circumstances 
prevent  the  use  of  any  other  method.  This  kind  of  speak- 
ing has  the  advantage  of  spontaneity  and  freedom ;  but,  with 
this  advantage,  it  has  the  much  more  serious  disadvantage, 
that  it  encourages  a  superficial,  incomplete,  long-winded, 
and  inaccurate  treatment  of  the  subject. 

The  reading  method,  likewise,  has  very  little  to  commend 
it  and  much  that  may  be  said  against  it.  It  encourages,  of 
course,  a  thorough  and  accurate  treatment  of  the  subject; 
but  at  the  same  time  it  chills  enthusiasm,  destroys  confi- 
dence in  the  speaker,  and  prevents  altogether  a  rapid  fire 


Making  the  Speech  45 

of  "  give  and  take  "  that  should  characterize  all  effective 
debating.  This  method,  therefore,  like  the  impromptu 
method,  should  always  be  avoided  in  debate. 

The  memory  method  has  much  in  common  with  the  reading 
method,  since  both  involve  the  use  of  written  speeches ;  but 
it  has,  at  least,  one  great  advantage  over  reading,  for  it  may 
arouse  enthusiasm  when  ably  employed  and  it  does  create 
a  certain  degree  of  confidence  in  the  speaker.  It  shares 
with  reading,  however,  the  tremendous  disadvantage  of 
putting  the  speaker  into  a  straight-jacket,  confining  him  so 
rigidly  to  set  forms  of  expression  that  he  finds  it  almost 
impossible  to  make  any  rapid  readjustment  in  his  case  to 
meet  the  demands  of  constantly  changing  situations.  This 
method,  therefore,  while  permissible  among  beginners, 
should  be  discarded  as  soon  as  possible. 

The  mixed  method  of  speaking  is,  of  course,  a  compromise 
between  the  memory  method  and  the  extempore  method 
and  has  the  faults  and  virtues  of  each.  Its  chief  virtue  is 
that  it  permits  the  careful  preparation  of  those  parts  of  a 
speech  that  are  most  difficult  to  express  and  allows  perfect 
freedom  of  expression  in  other  parts,  while  at  the  same  time 
it  permits  many  necessary  readjustments  of  the  case  while 
the  debate  is  in  progress.  Its  chief  fault,  however,  is  that 
a  transition  from  a  memorized  portion  of  a  speech  to  an  ex- 
tempore portion  is  most  difficult  to  perform  without  detec- 
tion; and,  if  such  a  transition  is  extremely  awkward  and 
noticeable,  the  effect  is  to  destroy  confidence  in  the 
speaker. 

Of  all  the  various  methods  of  making  a  speech,  the  ex- 
tempore method  is,  therefore,  the  only  one  that  adapts  itself 
to  every  requirement  of  debate.  Like  other  methods,  it  has 
some  disadvantages,  the  chief  of  which  is  that  at  any  time 
it  may  lapse  into  impromptu  speaking  with  all  its  attendant 


46  Beginning  Principles 

evils ;  but,  even  with  this  risk,  which  is  always  present,  it  is 
far  superior  to  all  the  other  methods ;  first,  because  it  per- 
mits the  most  careful,  painstaking,  and  thorough  prepara- 
tion; second,  because,  when  ably  handled,  it  inspires  great 
confidence  in  the  speaker ;  and,  third,  because  it  is  the  only 
method  that  permits  complete  freedom  of  action  in  re- 
adjusting one's  case  to  meet  the  demands  of  constantly 
changing  situations. 

Means  of  Developing  the  Extempore  Habit.  —  From  the 
very  outset  in  the  practice  of  debate,  a  speaker  should  seek 
to  develop  the  extempore  habit.  The  best  means  for  doing 
this,  of  course,  are  to  enter  at  once  upon  the  practice  of  this 
method  and  to  fight  off  all  temptations  that  lead  to  the  em- 
ployment of  other  methods. 

If  such  treatment  proves  too  rigorous,  however,  and 
threatens  to  kill  off  the  patient  before  establishing  the  de- 
sired habit ;  then  the  speaker  should  be  allowed  to  use  the 
memory  method  in  his  main  speech,  but  should  always  try 
to  use  the  extempore  method  in  rebuttal.  From  the  use  of 
a  pure  memory  method  in  the  main  speech,  the  speaker  may 
then  progress  gradually  to  the  use  of  the  mixed  method ;  and, 
finally,  he  will  find  that  he  is  able  to  discard  the  memory 
method  altogether,  and  to  rely  solely  upon  the  method  of 
speaking  extempore. 

IV.  Style  to  Be  Cultivated  in  the  Speech 

The  Oratorical  vs.  the  Conversational  Style. — All  speak- 
ing in  debate  may  be  characterized  as  exhibiting  one  or  the 
other  of  two  styles  popularly  known  as  the  oratorical  style  and 
the. conversational  style. 

The  so-called  oratorical  style  is  developed  usually  from 
the  habit  of  delivering  speeches  by  the  memory  method, 


Making  the  Speech  47 

and  differs  from  the  conversational  style  in  the  fact  that  it 
is  more  or  less  elaborate,  appealing  to  the  emotions. 

The  so-called  conversational  style,  in  contrast  with  the 
oratorical  style,  is  developed  usually  from  the  habit  of  de- 
livering speeches  by  the  extempore  method,  and  involves  a 
manner  that  is  extremely  simple  and  straightforward,  ap- 
pealing to  the  intellect. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  relative  merits  of 
these  two  styles  of  speaking  in  debate ;  and  beginners  often 
wonder,  therefore,  which  style  they  should  cultivate.  The 
answer  to  this  problem  is :  that,  in  some  degree,  they  should 
cultivate  both. 

Debate  involves  an  appeal  both  to  the  emotions  and  to 
the  intellect.  Hence,  both  styles  in  some  degree  are  desir- 
able. The  dominant  style  throughout  the  beginning  and 
middle  of  the  speech  should  be  conversational,  inasmuch  as 
in  these  portions  of  the  speech  the  appeal  is  chiefly  to  rea- 
son ;  but  in  the  concluding  paragraphs,  the  style  may  well 
become  oratorical,  because  there,  if  anywhere,  the  speech 
should  contain  an  appeal  to  the  emotions. 

Directness  and  Earnestness  Most  Important  in  Debate.  — 
Much  more  important,  however,  than  any  dispute  between 
the  relative  merits  of  these  two  styles  of  delivery  is  the  fact 
that  the  debater  should  always  strive  to  embody  in  his  style 
the  qualities  of  directness  and  earnestness. 

To  be  direct  in  one's  speech  demands  that  a  speaker 
always  look  straight  into  the  eyes  of  his  audience :  that  he 
should  avoid  looking  up  at  the  ceiling,  down  at  the  floor,  or 
out  into  a  haze  over  the  heads  of  his  audience.  If  the  speak- 
er's eye  avoids  the  audience,  it  creates  the  suspicion  that  he 
is  insincere  or  afraid;  but,  if,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  fixed 
always  on  the  audience,  it  not  only  inspires  respect  and 


48  Beginning  Principles 

confidence,  but  it  also  enables  the  debater  to  judge  the  effect 
of  his  words  and  to  adjust  his  remarks  to  meet  all  the  chang- 
ing moods  of  his  listeners. 

Directness  in  speech  is  a  great  asset  to  a  speaker;  and, 
when  this  quality  is  coupled  with  earnestness,  it  becomes 
almost  irresistible.  The  debater,  therefore,  should  culti- 
vate also  the  quality  of  earnestness.  This  does  not  mean, 
of  course,  that  he  should  shout  and  bellow  at  an  audience, 
or  that  he  should  saw  the  air  with  gesticulation.  It  means 
rather  that  he  should  utter  each  thought  as  if  it  were  for  the 
moment,  at  least,  the  most  important  thing  in  the  world ;  and, 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  should  utter  it  with  so  much  re- 
served force  that  he  will  appear  to  create  the  impression  of 
being  able  to  say  it  with  a  thousand  times  more  emphasis 
if  he  only  would.  Real  enthusiasm  for  one's  thought  and 
reserved  force  in  expressing  it  are  the  qualities  that  make 
speech  earnest. 

Summary  of  the  Problems  of  Speech-Making.  —  The 
most  important  problems  in  making  a  speech  are  connected 
with  the  proper  method  of  preparation,  the  best  method  of 
presentation,  and  the  style  to  be  cultivated  in  delivery. 
When  the  debater  knows  how  to  select  the  main  points  of 
his  speech  and  how  to  build  an  outline,  and  when  he  has 
developed  an  ability  to  speak  extempore,  arid  has  cultivated 
the  qualities  of  directness  and  earnestness  in  delivery,  then 
he  will  have  solved  these  problems;  and,  thereafter,  he 
should  experience  less  and  less  difficulty  each  time  he  is 
called  upon  to  make  a  speech  in  debate. 


PART  II.    ELEMENTS  OF  PROOF 

CHAPTER  I 

EVIDENCE  1 

Importance  of  the  Study  of  Evidence.  —  From  all  that 
has  been  said  in  the  preceding  chapters  on  beginning  prin- 
ciples, it  is  hoped  that  the  student  will  be  able  to  undertake 
intelligently  the  practice  of  debate.  If,  however,  the  student 
is  to  acquire  skill  in  the  use  of  these  principles,  he  must 
become  familiar  with  all  the  different  elements  involved  in 
proof;  for  proof  is  the  most  fundamental  process  in  debate. 
These  elements  are  evidence  and  argument,  which  represent 
the  means  of  proof;  fallacy,  which  represents  a  serious 
defect  in  proof ;  and  refutation,  which  represents  a  peculiar 
form  of  proof.  Among  these  different  elements,  evidence 
is  indispensable ;  and,  hence,  the  study  of  evidence  should 
be  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  for  consideration  in 
the  art  of  debate. 

Definition  of  Evidence.  —  Evidence  consists  of  any  matter 
of  fact  that  serves  as  a  basis  of  proof. 

Distinguishing  Qualities  of  Evidence. — To  determine 
what  constitutes  evidence  and  what  does  not,  a  debater 
must  be  able  to  distinguish  clearly  the  difference  between 
matters  of  fact  and  matters  of  theory,  and  also  between 
matters  of  fact  that  serve,  or  do  not  serve,  as  a  basis  of  proof. 

A  matter  of  fact,  as  distinguished  from  a  matter  of  theory, 
is  concerned  with  the  existence  of  things,  the  occurrence  of 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Evidence,  see  Appendix  A, 

49 


50  Elements  of  Proof 

acts,  the  classification  of  objects,  and  the  connection  be- 
tween events ;  whereas,  a  matter  of  theory  is  concerned  with 
general  laws  or  principles  that  may  be  employed  in  settling 
questions  of  fact  or  questions  of  policy. 

Not  all  matters  of  fact  constitute  evidence,  however,  but 
only  those  matters  of  fact  that  serve  as  a  basis  of  proof.  To 
serve  in  this  capacity,  a  matter  of  fact  must  satisfy  two  re- 
quirements. First,  it  must  be  employed  as  a  premise  in 
argument;  and,  second,  it  must  constitute  a  premise  that 
demands  no  proof  beyond  the  authority  of  common  knowl- 
edge or  the  authority  of  a  competent  witness. 

Relation  between  Evidence  and  Argument.  —  If  the  na- 
ture of  evidence  is  to  be  clearly  understood,  something  must 
be  known  also  concerning  the  nature  of  argument. 

As  has  been  said,  proof  consists  entirely  of  evidence  and 
argument. 

Argument  is  a  process  by  which  the  mind  is  led  from 
one  or  more  assumed  or  known  truths  to  acknowledge  an 
alleged  truth. 

The  alleged  truth  that  the  mind  is  led  to  acknowledge 
through  argument  is  called  the  conclusion. 

The  mental  process,  involved  in  argument,  in  which  the 
mind  passes  from  the  knowledge  of  one  or  more  truths  to 
the  knowledge  of  another  truth,  is  called  inference. 

The  assumed  or  known  truths  from  which  an  inference 
is  made  are  called  the  premises. 

These  premises  express  either  matters  of  theory  or  mat- 
ters of  fact.  Whenever  an  argument  is  stated  in  full,  one 
of  its  premises  will  contain  a  statement  of  the  theory  in- 
volved in  the  proof,  and  its  other  premise  or  premises  will 
contain  a  statement  of  facts.  If  these  facts  stated  in  the 
premises  can  be  accepted  as  true  with  no  further  proof 


Evidence  51 

than  the  authority  of  common  knowledge  or  the  authority 
of  a  competent  witness,  then  they  constitute  evidence. 

Example  of  Evidence  in  Its  Relation  to  Argument.  —  An 
example  of  evidence  in  its  relation  to  argument  is  found  in 
the  following  chain  of  reasoning  taken  from  the  proof  sub- 
mitted in  Edmund  Burke's  speech  on  Conciliation  with  the 
Colonies  : 

I.  By  admitting  the  colonies  into  an  interest  in  the  Brit- 
ish Constitution,  peace  in  America  will  be  restored ; 
for 

A.  If  peace  was  restored  by  this  method  in  Wales,  it 
would  also  be  restored  by  the  same  means  in  Amer- 
ica; and 

B.  Peace  was  restored  by  this  method  in  Wales ;  for 

1.  After  the  adoption  of  this  policy  toward  Wales, 
the  Welsh  people  became  transformed  from 
savages  into  a  civilized  nation  ;  (Evidence) 

2.  Frontier  raids  upon  England  from  Wales  ceased; 
(Evidence)  and 

3.  Invasion  of  Wales  from  England  also  ceased. 
(Evidence) 

In  this  chain  of  reasoning  several  arguments  are  intro- 
duced. The  first  involves  the  inference  between  the  prop- 
osition marked  I  and  the  propositions  marked  A  and  B; 
and  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  involve  respectively  the 
inferences  between  the  propositions  marked  B  and  1 ;  B 
and  2 ;  B  and  3. 

The  propositions  marked  A  and  B  are  premises  of  the 
first  argument ;  and  the  proposition  marked  B  is  the  con- 
clusion of  the  latter  three  arguments. 

The  propositions  marked  1,  2,  and  3  are  premises  for  the 
latter  three  arguments ;  and  because  they  require  no  further 


52  Elements  of  Proof 

proof  than  the  authority  of  common  knowledge  to  be  them- 
selves accepted  as  true,  they  constitute  evidence. 

The  propositions  marked  A  and  B,  however,  although 
they  serve  as  premises,  do  not  constitute  evidence;  because 
the  proposition  marked  A  constitutes  theory  rather  than 
fact ;  and  the  proposition  marked  B  constitutes  a  fact  that 
seems  to  require  further  proof  than  the  authority  of  com- 
mon knowledge  or  the  authority  of  a  competent  witness  in 
order  that  it  may  be  accepted  as  true. 

Objects  to  Be  Sought  in  the  Study  of  Evidence.  —  In  the 
chain  of  reasoning  given  above  it  will  be  noticed  that  all  of 
the  last  subheadings  constitute  evidence.  Every  chain  of 
reasoning  must  be  based  eventually  on  evidence ;  and,  hence, 
it  is  extremely  important  that  a  debater  be  able  to  recog- 
nize, not  only  what  constitutes  evidence,  but  also  what  con- 
stitutes valid  evidence. 

The  objects  to  be  sought,  therefore,  in  the  study  of  evi- 
dence will  be :  First,  to  understand  all  the  various  classes  of 
evidence  and  the  use  that  may  be  made  of  each;  and  sec- 
ond, to  understand  the  tests  that  may  be  applied  to  deter- 
mine the  strength  or  weakness  of  one's  own  evidence  and  the 
evidence  of  one's  opponent. 

I.  Classes  of  Evidence 

Classification  of  Evidence.  —  Evidence  may  be  classified 
in  very  many  different  ways,  but  perhaps  the  most  service- 
able basis  for  classification  takes  into  consideration  the  form 
of  the  evidence,  the  relation  that  the  evidence  bears  to  its 
conclusion,  and  the  source  from  which  the  evidence  is  ob- 
tained. 

All  evidence  may  be  classified  by  contrast  in  six  different 
ways : 


Evidence  53 

First,  according  to  its  form,  as : 

Real  or  Verbal  Evidence;  and 

Positive  or  Negative  Evidence ; 
Second,  according  to  the  relation  it  bears  to  its  conclusion,  as : 

Direct  or  Circumstantial  Evidence ;  and 
Third,  according  to  the  nature  of  its  source,  as  : 

Original  or  Hearsay  Evidence ; 

Written  or  Unwritten  Evidence ;   and 

Ordinary  or  Expert  Evidence. 

Real  and  Verbal  Evidence. — The  first  classification  of 
evidence  according  to  its  form  distinguishes  all  evidence  as 
either  real  evidence  or  verbal  evidence. 

Real  evidence,  in  contrast  with  verbal  evidence,  consists 
of  any  object  that  may  be  used  as  an  exhibit  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  of  a  debater's  contentions;  whereas,  verbal  evi- 
dence consists,  not  in  objects  themselves,  but  in  state- 
ments concerning  objects. 

Real  evidence,  for  example,  might  consist  of  a  blood- 
stained garment  actually  exhibited  in  a  murder  trial ;  a 
crippled  arm  exhibited  in  an  accident  case;  or  property 
that  is  viewed  in  a  dispute  over  real  estate.  Verbal  evi- 
dence, however,  would  consist  of  a  statement  about  the 
blood-stained  garment,  about  the  crippled  arm,  or  about 
the  property  in  dispute. 

Use  of  Real  and  Verbal  Evidence.  —  Most  evidence  em- 
ployed in  debate  is,  of  course,  verbal  evidence  rather  than 
real  evidence.  In  spite  of  this  fact,  however,  a  debater 
should  not  overlook  entirely  the  possibilities  of  real  evi- 
dence. No  opportunity  should  be  missed  by  the  debater  to 
examine  thoroughly  whatever  real  evidence  is  available; 
and,  whenever  this  evidence  is  favorable,  he  should  seek  to 
introduce   it,  if  possible,  in  debate ;  because  generally  real 


54  Elements  of  Proof 

evidence  has  a  much  more  powerful  appeal  than  can  be  made 
by  words. 

Positive  and  Negative  Evidence.  —  The  second  classifica- 
tion of  evidence  according  to  its  form  distinguishes  all  evi- 
dence as  either  positive  or  negative  evidence. 

Positive  evidence,  in  contrast  with  negative  evidence, 
consists  of  any  actual  facts,  or  of  any  statements  that  affirm 
the  existence  or  occurrence  of  facts;  whereas,  negative  evi- 
dence consists  of  an  absence  of  fact,  or  any  statement  deny- 
ing the  existence  or  occurrence  of  facts. 

Positive  evidence,  for  example,  might  be  found  either  in 
the  appearance  of  a  person  on  the  street,  or  in  a  statement 
that  a  certain  person  did  appear  on  the  street.  Negative 
evidence,  however,  would  consist  in  the  non-appearance  of 
a  person,  or  in  a  statement  denying  the  appearance  of  a 
person. 

Use  of  Positive  and  Negative  Evidence.  —  Whenever 
possible,  a  debater  should  seek  to  employ  positive,  rather 
than  negative,  evidence ;  for,  when  one  contradicts  the  other 
and  both  are  derived  from  equally  credible  witnesses, 
positive  evidence  is  entitled  to  more  weight  than  negative 
evidence,  since  one  of  the  witnesses  may  have  failed  to  see  or 
hear  what  the  other  witness  did  actually  see  or  hear. 

Direct  and  Circumstantial  Evidence. — The  only  im- 
portant classification  of  evidence  according  to  the  relation 
it  bears  to  its  conclusion  distinguishes  all  evidence  as  either 
direct  or  circumstantial  evidence. 

Direct  evidence,  in  contrast  with  circumstantial  evidence, 
consists  of  any  matter  that  goes  expressly  to  the  very  point 
in  question.  Direct  evidence,  in  other  words,  consists  of 
any  evidence  that  proves  a  point  without  the  aid  of  infer- 


Evidence  55 

ence.  It  consists  either  of  the  thing  itself  that  is  in  dis- 
pute; or  of  the  statement  of  a  witness  that  he  (1)  saw, 
(2)  heard,  (3)  felt,  (4)  tasted,  or  (5)  smelled  the  thing  in 
dispute;  or  (6)  that  he  knows  the  thing  in  dispute  to  be 
true  or  false ;  or  (7)  that  it  is  true  or  false. 

Circumstantial  evidence,  on  the  contrary,  consists  of  any 
fact  that  goes  expressly  to  some  other  point  than  the  point 
in  question;  Circumstantial  evidence  consists,  therefore, 
of  any  fact  from  which  an  inference  may  be  drawn  to  the 
point  in  question.  This  kind  of  evidence  may  assume  many 
different  forms,  such  as,  for  example  :  First,  a  prior  fact  that 
serves  as  a  necessary  cause  for  the  thing  in  dispute ;  second, 
a  subsequent  fact  that  serves  as  a  necessary  effect  of  the 
thing  in  dispute ;  third,  an  example  of  the  thing  in  dispute ; 
or,  fourth,  a  similar  instance  to  the  thing  in  dispute. 

The  following  examples  of  evidence  will  make  plain  the 
distinction  between  direct  and  circumstantial  evidence; 
and  at  the  same  time  will  show  many  varieties  of  evidence 
that  may  be  called  circumstantial  evidence : 

I.   Mr.  Smith's  summer  cottage  at  the  beach  is  occupied 
this  season ;  for 

A.  His  agent  says  it  is  occupied.     (Direct  Evidence) 

B.  Mr.  Brown  has  rented  Mr.  Smith's  cottage.     (Cir- 
cumstantial Evidence  —  Prior  Fact) 

C.  All  the  windows  in  Mr.  Smith's  cottage   are  open. 
(Circumstantial  Evidence  —  Subsequent  Fact) 

D.  Mr.  Smith's  cottage  has  always  been  occupied  in  pre- 
vious seasons ;  for 

1.   It  was   occupied  last    season.     (Circumstantial 
Evidence  —  Example) 

E.  Another  cottage  just  like  Mr.  Smith's  is   occupied. 
(Circumstantial  Evidence  —  Similar  Instance) 


56  Elements  of  Proof 

Use  of  Direct  and  Circumstantial  Evidence.  —  In  the 
selection  of  proof,  a  debater  should  seek  always  to  employ 
both  direct  and  circumstantial  evidence. 

Direct  evidence  is  considered  highly  desirable,  because, 
if  no  question  is  raised  concerning  the  reliability  of  its  au- 
thor, the  conclusion  derived  from  it  is  established  beyond 
all  doubt.  In  most  instances  of  dispute,  however,  the  di- 
rect evidence  of  one  witness  is  contradicted  by  that  of  an- 
other ;  and  in  many  instances  no  direct  evidence  is  available. 
Direct  evidence,  therefore,  should  be  corroborated,  or  con- 
firmed, by  circumstantial  evidence ;  and,  in  the  absence  of 
direct  evidence,  circumstantial  evidence  must  take  its  place. 

Circumstantial  evidence,  however,  is  rarely  conclusive 
until  it  becomes  cumulative;  that  is,  until  evidence  is  sub- 
mitted representing  several  of  the  subdivisions  of  circum- 
stantial evidence ;  or  until  many  instances  of  evidence  are 
submitted,  all  falling  within  a  single  subdivision  of  circum- 
stantial evidence. 

To  illustrate :  In  the  examples  given  above,  the  direct 
evidence  is  corroborated  by  a  great  quantity  of  circumstan- 
tial evidence ;  and  the  circumstantial  evidence  is  made  cumu- 
lative by  instances  representing  each  of  the  subdivisions  of 
this  class  of  evidence. 

Original  and  Hearsay  Evidence.  —  The  first  classification 
of  evidence  according  to  the  nature  of  its  source  distinguishes 
all  evidence  as  either  original  or  hearsay  evidence. 

Original  evidence  consists  of  any  fact  or  statement  of  fact 
derived  from  an  original  source ;  that  is,  from  inspection  or 
common  knowledge,  or  from  an  eye-witness  or  original  au- 
thority; whereas,  hearsay  evidence  consists  only  of  state- 
ments of  fact  derived  from  a  witness  or  authority  who  re- 
ports as  true  what  other  witnesses  or  authorities  have  said. 


Evidence  57 

Original  evidence  is  often  confused  with  direct  evidence ; 
and  hearsay  evidence  with  circumstantial  evidence.  Hence, 
it   is   important  to    note    the    distinction   between    them. 

The  difference  between  original  and  direct  evidence  is : 
that  original  evidence  comes  directly  from  its  original  source 
without  passing  from  mouth  to  mouth ;  whereas,  direct  evi- 
dence goes  directly  to  its  conclusion  without  passing  through 
the  process  of  inference. 

Between  hearsay  and  circumstantial  evidence  there  is 
a  corresponding  difference.  Hearsay  evidence  comes  indi- 
rectly from  its  original  source,  passing  from  mouth  to  mouth ; 
whereas,  circumstantial  evidence  goes  indirectly  to  its  conclu- 
sion, passing  through  the  process  of  inference. 

Original  and  hearsay  evidence  may,  therefore,  be  either 
direct  or  circumstantial ;  and  direct  and  circumstantial  evi- 
dence may  be  either  original  or  hearsay. 

The  best  way  to  fix  in  mind  the  distinction  between  these 
classifications  is  to  avoid  altogether  the  use  of  the  term 
indirect  evidence,  inasmuch. as  this  term  may  apply  either  to 
hearsay  or  to  circumstantial  evidence. 

To  illustrate  what  is  meant  by  original  and  hearsay  evi- 
dence, examples  may  be  drawn  from  the  literary  controversy 
concerning  the  alleged  marriage  of  Jonathan  Swift  to  Esther 
Johnson,  otherwise  known  as  Stella.  The  first  writer  to 
assert  that  Stella  was  the  wife  of  Swift  was  Orrery.  He 
said :  ■  ■  Stella  was  the  concealed  but  undoubted  wife  of  Dr. 
Swift"  This  statement  by  Orrery  constitutes  original 
evidence.  When  this  statement  was  repeated,  however, 
by  Delaney,  who  acknowledged  that  Orrery  was  the'  source 
from  which  he  obtained  his  information,  it  then  became 
hearsay  evidence.  This  kind  of  evidence  assumes,  therefore, 
the  following  form :  Delaney  says  that  Orrery  said  that  Stella 
was  the  concealed  but  undoubted  wife  of  Dr.  Swift. 


58  Elements  of  Proof 

Use  of  Original  and  Hearsay  Evidence.  —  Hearsay 
evidence  is  not  thought  worthy  of  any  recognition,  except 
in  very  unusual  circumstances,  such  as  in  the  case  of  death- 
bed utterances,  reported  confessions,  and  matters  of  com- 
mon report  that  amount  almost  to  common  knowledge. 
The  debater,  therefore,  in  seeking  evidence,  should  always 
strive  to  obtain  original  evidence  in  preference  to  hearsay 
evidence. 

The  reason  for  frowning  upon  hearsay  evidence  is,  of 
course,  obvious ;  for  hearsay  evidence,  in  being  transmitted 
from  person  to  person,  is  most  liable  to  become  warped  and 
distorted. 

Hearsay  evidence  should  not  be  neglected  entirely,  how- 
ever, in  building  up  a  case;  for  very  often  from  hearsay 
evidence  a  debater  may^find  valuable  clews  to  original  evi- 
dence. 

Written  and  Unwritten  Evidence.  —  The  second  classi- 
fication of  evidence  according  to  the  nature  of  its  source 
distinguishes  all  evidence  as  either  written  or  unwritten 
evidence. 

Written  evidence,  in  contrast  with  unwritten  evidence, 
consists  of  any  statement  of  fact  derived  originally  from 
a  written  or  printed  source ;  whereas,  unwritten  evidence  con- 
sists of  any  fact  or  statement  of  fact  derived  from  inspection 
or  common  knowledge,  or  from  an  original  spoken  source. 

All  documentary  evidence,  such  as  that  derived  originally 
from  deeds,  wills,  mortgages,  receipts,  notes,  charters, 
statutes,"  constitutions,  treaties,  manuscripts,  and  printed 
publications,  constitutes  written  evidence ;  whereas,  all  real 
evidence,  all  common  knowledge,  and  all  oral  testimony 
constitute  unwritten  evidence. 

To  illustrate  the  difference  between  written  and  unwritten 


Evidence  59 

evidence,  facts  taken  from  an  editorial  in  a  newspaper  would 
constitute  written  evidence;  but  these  same  facts,  if  taken 
from  a  speech  reported  in  a  newspaper,  would  constitute 
unwritten  evidence. 

Use  of  Written  and  Unwritten  Evidence. — Whenever 
evidence  depends  on  witnesses  or  authorities,  written  evi- 
dence is  considered  more  valuable  than  unwritten  evidence ; 
for  written  evidence  usually  represents  the  more  deliberate 
judgment  of  its  author.  If  written  evidence  is  contrary  to 
subsequent  oral  testimony,  it  usually  has  greater  weight, 
also,  because  it  is  more  likely  to  be  free  from  errors  of 
memory. 

In  some  cases  a  debater  must  rely  on  oral  testimony,  but 
in  all  cases  he  should  seek  diligently  for  any  written  evi- 
dence ;  and,  whenever  this  is  found,  he  should  give  it  prefer- 
ence over  oral  testimony. 

Ordinary  and  Expert  Evidence.  —  The  third  and  last 
classification  of  evidence  according  to  the  nature  of  its  source 
distinguishes  all  evidence  as  either  ordinary  or  expert  evi- 
dence. 

Ordinary  evidence,  in  contrast  with  expert  evidence,  con- 
sists of  any  matter  of  fact  to  which  any  person  without  a 
specialist's  knowledge  or  experience  may  testify;  whereas, 
expert  evidence  consists  of  any  matter  of  opinion  regarding 
facts  to  which  only  persons  with  a  specialist's  knowledge 
or  experience  may  testify. 

To  illustrate  the  difference  between  ordinary  and  expert 
evidence,  in  a  controversy  about  whether  a  new  bridge 
should  be  erected  to  replace  an  old  one,  a  statement  that  the 
old  bridge  was  dilapidated  would  constitute  ordinary  evi- 
dence;  but  a  statement  that  the  old  bridge  was  no  longer 


60  Elements  of  Proof 

safe  under  the  traffic  it  had  to  bear  would  probably  consti- 
tute expert  evidence. 

Use  of  Ordinary  and  Expert  Evidence.  —  In  some  cases 
both  ordinary  and  expert  evidence  are  essential;  and, 
hence,  neither  type  of  evidence  should  be  neglected  for  the 
other.  Ordinary  evidence  is  always  made  more  valuable 
by  the  corroboration  of  expert  evidence,  and  expert  evidence 
is  likewise  made  more  valuable  by  the  corroboration  of 
ordinary  evidence. 

II.  Tests  for  Evidence 

Importance  of  the  Tests  for  Evidence.  —  When  one  un- 
derstands thproughly  all  the  various  classes  of  evidence  and 
the  use  that  may  be  made  of  each,  the  next  object  to  be 
sought  in  the  study  of  evidence  is  to  understand  all  the  dif- 
ferent tests  for  determining  the  validity  of  alleged  evidence. 
These  tests  constitute  the  most  important  part  of  the  study 
of  evidence ;  because,  through  them,  a  debater  is  made  able 
to  determine  the  strength  or  weakness  of  alleged  facts  that 
serve  as  the  basis  of  his  own  proof  and  the  proof  of  his  oppo- 
nent. 

Distinction  between  Tests  fpr  Evidence  and  Tests  for 
Argument.  —  From  the  very  outset  in  the  study  of  tests  for 
evidence,  a  debater  should  distinguish  carefully  between 
these  tests  and  the  tests  for  argument,  which  will  be  given 
consideration  later. 

Tests  for  evidence  have  nothing  to  do  with  determining 
the  validity  of  inferences  that  are  drawn  from  evidence ;  for 
this  is  the  function  of  tests  for  argument.  The  only  func- 
tion of  tests  for  evidence  is  to  determine  whether  or  not  al- 
leged evidence  may  be  accepted  as  true  on  the  authority  of 


Evidence  61 

common  knowledge  or  on  the  authority  of  witnesses  who 
vouch  for  it. 

Three  Main  Groups  of  Tests  for  Evidence. — The  tests 
for  evidence  may  be  divided  into  three  main  groups  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  Tests  of  Consistency ; 

2.  General  Tests  of  Source ;  and 

3.  Special  Tests  of  Source  for  Expert  Evidence. 

The  tests  of  consistency  are  tests  that  may  be  applied  to 
all  evidence  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  agrees  with  other 
knowledge  or  with  other  alleged  evidence.  The  general 
tests  of  source  are  tests  that  may  be  applied  to  all  evidence 
derived  from  witnesses.  And  the  special  tests  of  source  for 
expert  evidence  are  tests  that  may  be  applied  only  to  expert 
evidence. 

Table  of  Tests  for  Evidence.  —  A  complete  table  of  the 
more  important  tests  that  may  be  applied  to  alleged  evi- 
dence is  given  below : 

I.  Tests  of   Consistency 

A.  Is  the  alleged  evidence  consistent  with  probability? 

1.  Is  the  alleged  evidence  consistent  with  general  laws 

of  human  experience  ? 

2.  Is  the  alleged  evidence  consistent  with  prior  facts? 

3.  Is  the  alleged  evidence  consistent  with  subsequent 

facts  ? 

4.  Is   the   alleged   evidence   consistent   with   specific 

examples  ? 

5.  Is  the  alleged  evidence  consistent  with  other  spe- 

cific instances? 

B.  Is    the    alleged    evidence    directly    contradicted    by 

known  facts? 


62  Elements  of  Proof 

C.   Is   the   alleged   evidence    consistent   with   all   other 
alleged  evidence  submitted  in  the  same  proof  ? 

II.  General  Tests  of  Source 

A.  Was  the  witness  in  a  position  to  observe  the  facts? 

B.  Was  the  witness  physically  capable  of  making  an 

accurate  observation? 

C.  Has  the  witness  a  reliable  memory  ? 

D.  Does  the  witness  speak  with  deliberate  accuracy? 

E.  Does  the  witness  prevaricate  ? 

1.  Has  the  witness  prevaricated  in  other  matters? 

2.  Has  the  witness  a  generally  good  moral  character  ? 

3.  Has  the  witness  a  motive  to  prevaricate? 

III.  Special  Tests  of  Source  for  Expert  Evidence 

A.  Does    the    alleged    expert    display    a    specialist's 

knowledge  within   the    field  of  his  alleged   spe- 
cialty ?  r. 

B.  Is  the  alleged  expert  generally  recognized  as  an 

authority  within  the  field  of  his  alleged  specialty  ? 

Tests  of  Consistency  with  Probability.  —  The  first  tests 
of  consistency  to  be  applied  to  all  evidence  involve  the  prob- 
ability of  evidence.  These  tests  may  be  applied  in  various 
ways,  all  of  which  are  illustrated  below. 

Consistency  with  Human  Experience 

Whenever  alleged  evidence  is  any  way  extraordinary, 
abnormal,  or  absurd,  it  is  inconsistent  with  probability; 
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  general  laws  of  human  expe- 
rience. 

To  illustrate :  In  an  investigation  to  determine  the  cause 
of  a  certain  farmer's  death,  evidence  might  be  submitted 
that  the  farmer  committed  suicide  at  the  prospect  of  a  big 


Evidence  63 

crop.  Such  evidence,  however,  is  somewhat  extraordinary, 
somewhat  abnormal,  and  somewhat  absurd ;  and  is,  there- 
fore, inconsistent  with  probability,  because  it  is  inconsist- 
ent with  general  laws  of  human  experience. 

Consistency  with  Prior  Facts 

Whenever  alleged  evidence  appears  to  be  improbable  on 
account  of  prior  facts,  it  is  inconsistent  with  probability ; 
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  prior  facts. 

To  illustrate :  In  a  certain  murder  case,  evidence  was 
submitted  that  the  defendant  provoked  an  assault  by  threaten- 
ing a  crowd  of  strangers  in  a  tavern  in  which  he  was  staying. 
This  alleged  evidence  appeared  improbable,  however,  when 
other  evidence  was  introduced  to  the  effect  that  the 
defendant  was  a  judge  who  had  come  from  a  distance  to  be 
married  on  the  day  the  assault  took  place.  The  alleged 
evidence  in  this  case  was  tested  for  consistency  with  prob- 
ability on  the  ground  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  prior 
facts. l 

Consistency  with  Subsequent  Facts 

Whenever  alleged  evidence  appears  to  be  improbable  on 
account  of  subsequent  facts,  it  is  inconsistent  with  proba- 
bility ;   because  it  is  inconsistent  with  subsequent  facts. 

To  illustrate :  In  a  case  of  highway  robbery,  evidence  might 
be  submitted  that  the  alleged  robbers  struck  their  victim  with 
heavy  clubs,  dragged  him  over  a  fence  in  such  a  way  as  to  break 
the  boards,  then  threw  him  violently  on  the  ground,  kicked  him, 
choked  him,  and  jumped  on  his  breast,  and  left  him  only 
when  they  supposed  he  was  killed.  This  alleged  evidence 
appears    improbable,    however,    when     other    evidence    is 


1  See,  in  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  speech  by  Prentiss  In  De- 
fense of  Judge  Wilkinson. 


64  Elements  of  Proof 

introduced  to  the  effect  that  no  wound,  bruise,  discoloration, 
or  mark  of  injury  was  found  on  the  alleged  victim's  body.  The 
alleged  evidence  in  this  case  is  tested  for  consistency  with 
probability  on  the  ground  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  sub- 
sequent facts.1 

Consistency  of  General  Evidence  with  Specific  Examples 

Whenever  broad,  general,  sweeping  statements  given  as 
evidence  appear  improbable  because  they  do  not  agree  with 
facts  to  which  they  should  apply,  they  are  inconsistent  with 
probability  by  being  inconsistent  with  specific  examples. 

To  illustrate :  In  a  political  campaign,  a  party  may  sub- 
mit as  evidence  the  statement  that  it  has  always  stood  for 
economy  in  the  expenditure  of  public  moneys.  This  alleged 
evidence  appears  improbable,  however,  when  other  evidence 
is  introduced  to  show  that  the  party  in  question  has  author- 
ized  padded  payrolls,  inflated  contracts,  extravagant  salaries, 
and  huge  payments  to  party  bosses.  The  alleged  evidence  in 
such  a  case  is  tested  for  consistency  with  probability  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  specific  examples. 

Consistency  of  Specific  Evidence  tvith  Other  Specific  Instances 

Whenever  alleged  evidence  concerning  some  particular, 
individual,  or  specific  thing  appears  improbable  because  it 
does  not  agree  with  what  is  known  concerning  similar  things, 
it  is  inconsistent  with  probability  by  being  inconsistent  with 
other  specific  instances. 

To  illustrate:  In  the  dispute  concerning  whether  the 
United  States  navy  should  be  divided  into  two  fleets,  one 
in  the  Atlantic,  and  one  in  the  Pacific,  evidence  might  be 
submitted  that  the  two  fleets  could  be  united  in  time  of  emer- 

1  See  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Speech  in  Defense  of  the  Kennistons. 


Evidence  65 

gency  to  prevent  disaster.  This  alleged  evidence  appears 
somewhat  improbable,  however,  when  other  evidence  is 
introduced  to  show  that  by  following  this  same  policy  the 
fleets  of  Russia  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War  were  attacked 
and  destroyed  one  at  a  time  before  they  could  effect  a  union. 
The  alleged  evidence  in  this  case  is  tested  for  consistency 
with  probability  on  the  ground  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
another  specific  instance. 

Test  of  Direct  Contradiction  by  Known  Facts.  — The 
second  test  of  consistency  to  be  applied  to  all  alleged  evi- 
dence involves  the  possibility  of  direct  contradiction  by 
known  facts.  This  test  is  one  which,  in  effect,  asks  whether 
there  is  any  direct  evidence  to  contradict  the  alleged  evi- 
dence. 

To  illustrate :  In  a  certain  murder  case,  a  prisoner  tried 
to  prove  an  alibi  by  asserting  that  on  the  evening  of  the  mur- 
der he  had  hired  a  horse  and  carriage  from  a  livery  stable  and 
had  gone  riding  to  a  neighboring  town.  Other  evidence  was 
introduced,  however,  from  the  books  of  the  livery  stable 
to  show  that  he  had  hired  the  horse  and  carriage,  not  on  the 
evening  of  the  murder,  but  three  evenings  before  the  date  of  the 
murder.  The  alleged  evidence  in  this  case  was  tested  for 
consistency  by  being  directly  contradicted  by  known  facts. * 

Test  of  Consistency  with  Other  Alleged  Evidence  Sub- 
mitted in  the  Same  Proof.  —  The  third  test  of  consistency 
to  be  applied  to  all  alleged  evidence  involves  its  agreement 
with  all  other  alleged  evidence  submitted  in  the  same  proof. 
This  test  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  all  the  tests  of  con- 
sistency ;  for  nothing  is  so  damaging  or  unpardonable  as  the 
appearance  of  conflicting  statements  in  the  proof  of  one  of 
the  parties  in  controversy. 


1  See  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Speech  in  the  White  Murder  Case. 


66  Elements  of  Proof 

To  illustrate:  In  a  dispute  between  labor  and  capital 
concerning  who  should  manage  the  railroads,  the  representa- 
tive of  labor  advanced  the  alleged  evidence  that  the  rail- 
roads of  the  United  States  were  under  the  absolute  control  of  a 
small  group  of  bankers  who  were  able  thereby  to  milk  the  roads 
for  their  own  profit.  This  same  representative  of  labor  then 
advanced  in  another  part  of  his  proof  the  alleged  evidence 
that  the  railroads  could  save  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars 
annually  through  centralization  of  management.  The  alleged 
evidence  submitted  in  one  part  of  this  proof  was  tested  for 
consistency  with  other  alleged  evidence  submitted  in  the 
same  proof. 

Application  of  the  General  Tests  of  Source.  —  Evidence 
that  is  advanced  as  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  may  be 
subjected  only  to  the  tests  of  consistency;  but  when  evi- 
dence is  advanced  on  the  authority  of  witnesses,  after  it  has 
survived  the  tests  of  consistency,  it  may  still  be  tested  by 
the  general  tests  of  source.  Both  ordinary  evidence  and 
expert  evidence  may  be  subjected  to  these  tests. 

Was  the  Witness  in  a  Position  to  Observe  the  Facts  ?  — 

The  first  general  test  of  source  is:  Was  the  witness  in  a 
position  to  observe  the  facts?  This  test  demands  of  a  witness 
that  he  derive  his  information,  not  from  hearsay,  nor  from 
imagination,  nor  from  guess-work,  but  from  actual  observa- 
tion. If  a  witness  was  not  in  a  position  to  observe  the 
facts  to  which  he  testifies,  then  he  is  discredited  as  a  witness, 
and  his  evidence  is  regarded  as  unreliable. 

To  illustrate :  During  the  early  part  of  the  World  War 
many  reports  were  sent  out  of  Germany  as  evidence  from 
American  travelers  that  Germany  had  plenty  of  food-stuffs. 
These  American  travelers  were  never  in  a  position,  however, 


Evidence  67 

to*bbserve  the  facts,  inasmuch  as  they  were  sent  under 
German  escort  to  special  places  in  Germany  where  a  display 
of  food  was  made  and  they  never  really  saw  how  people  were 
living  throughout  most  of  Germany.  Because  these  travelers 
were  not  in  a  position  to  observe  the  facts,  they  were  dis- 
credited as  witnesses  and  their  evidence  was  regarded  as 
unreliable. 

Was  the  Witness  Physically  Capable  of  Making  an  Ac- 
curate Observation?  —  The  second  general  test  of  source 
is :  Was  the  witness  physically  capable  of  making  an  accurate 
observation?  This  test  demands  that  a  witness  possess 
whatever  physical  powers  are  necessary  to  make  an  observa- 
tion. In  most  instances  this  test  will  apply  to  some  one  of 
the  five  senses:  namely,  sight,  hearing,  feeling,  taste,  or 
smell ;  but  in  certain  instances  it  may  apply  to  such  physical 
qualities  as  health,  strength,  or  endurance.  The  testimony 
of  a  color-blind  man,  for  example,  in  respect  to  signals  that 
were  set  on  the  railroad  track  would  hardly  be  acceptable; 
and  the  testimony  of  a  crippled  invalid  would  hardly  be 
acceptable  for  statements  concerning  the  normal  difficulties 
of  physical  labor.  This  test,  like  the  following  one  for 
memory,  is  seldom  employed  in  ordinary  debates,  but  is 
very  common  in  courts  of  law,  and  is  included  here  for  the 
sake  of  completeness. 

Has  the  Witness  a  Reliable  Memory?  —  The  third  gen- 
eral test  of  source  is:  Has  the  witness  a  reliable  memory? 
This  test  is  intended  to  prevent  the  substitution  of  imagina- 
tion for  memory  in  reporting  evidence,  and  is  applied  usually 
by  testing  the  general  memory  of  the  witness  for  facts  with 
which  any  normal  person  in  the  position  of  the  witness  should 
be  familiar.  The  testimony  of  a  witness,  for  example,  con- 
cerning what  he  was  doing  at  an  ordinary  hour,  on  an  ordi- 


68  Elements  of  Proof 

nary  week-day,  a  year  before,  is  not  to  be  credited,  unless 
the  witness  can  also  state  what  he  was  doing  at  other  ordi- 
nary hours,  on  ordinary  week-days,  a  year  before.  If  some 
unusual  circumstance  enables  the  witness  to  remember  a 
special  event,  however,  the  test  of  general  memory  does  not 
apply.  This  test  can  seldom  be  employed  in  ordinary  de- 
bate, but  is  most  common  in  courts  of  law  when  a  cross- 
examination  of  witnesses  is  possible. 

f-  Does  the  Witness  Speak  with  Deliberate  Accuracy?  — 
The  fourth  general  test  of  source  is  :  Does  the  witness  speak 
with  deliberate  accuracy?  This  test  is  intended  to  prevent 
the  use  as  evidence  of  all  statements  uttered  without  delib- 
eration or  without  intent  to  convey  thought  with  literal  accu- 
racy. By  means  of  this  test,  witnesses  are  discredited  who 
speak  carelessly  or  use  language  that  may  be  interpreted  as 
containing  only  jokes,  irony,  sarcasm,  satire,  flattery,  ex- 
aggeration, or  flights  of  fancy.  According  to  this  test,  little 
that  is  said  in  impromptu  remarks,  humorous  after-dinner 
speeches,  comic  magazines,  nomination  speeches,  or  poetry 
can  be  taken  literally  as  valid  evidence. 

Does  the  Witness  Prevaricate  ?  —  The  fifth  general  test 
of  source  is :  Does  the  witness  prevaricate  ?  This  test 
should  be  introduced  only  as  a  last  resort,  for  it  introduces 
into  debate  a  very  bitter  personal  feeling;  and  very  often 
what  may  appear  to  be  deliberate  falsehood  is  in  reality 
only  a  mistake  in  judgment.  Whenever  possible,  the  de- 
bater should  use  in  the  place  of  this  test  any  of  the  various 
tests  for  consistency.  If  no  other  course  lies  open,  however, 
the  debater  may  employ  this  test  by  determining  whether 
the  witness  prevaricates  in  other  matters ;  whether  he  has  a 
good  moral  character ;  and  whether  he  has  a  motive  to  pre- 
varicate. 


Evidence  69 

Prevarication  in  Other  Matters 

If  a  witness  has  been  found  guilty  of  prevarication  in 
other  matters,  he  may  be  discredited  as  a  witness  through 
suspicion  of  prevarication  concerning  the  matter  in  hand. 
This  test  may  not  be  altogether  fair  to  the  witness,  but  it 
represents,  nevertheless,  a  common  method  of  determining 
the  veracity  of  a  witness. 

An  example  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
one  of  Daniel  O'Connell's  well-known  cases.  In  this  case 
Daniel  O'Connell  completely  discredited  a  witness  who 
swore  strongly  in  a  murder  case  that  he  knew  the  prisoner 
was  guilty. 

O'ConnelPs  method  was  to  prove  the  witness  a  liar  in 
another  matter  when  the  witness  swore  that  a  certain  hat 
was  found  near  the  place  of  the  murder  and  that  it 
belonged  to  the  prisoner,  whose  name  was  James. 

In  the  cross-examination  the  following  dialogue  took 
place : 

O'Connell.  "  By  virtue  of  your  oath,  are  you  positive 
that  this  is  the  same  hat?  " 

Witness.     "  I  am." 

O'Connell.  "  Did  you  examine  it  carefully  before  you 
swore  in  your  information  that  it  was  the  property  of  the 
prisoner?  " 

Witness.     "I  did." 

O'Connell  (taking  up  the  hat  and  examining  the  inside 
carefully,  at  the  same  time  spelling  aloud  the  name  James) . 
"  Now  let  me  see  — '  J-A-M-E-S '  —  do  you  mean  those 
letters  were  in  the  hat  When  you  found  it  ?  " 

Witness.     "I  do." 

O'Connell.     "  Did  you  see  them  there?  " 

Witness.     "  I  did." 


70  Elements  of  Proof 

O'Connell.     "  And  are  you  sure  this  is  the  same  hat  ?  " 

Witness.     "  I  am  sure." 

O'Connell  (holding  up  the  hat  to  the  Bench).  "  Now, 
my  lord,  I  submit  this  is  an  end  of  this  case.  There  is  no 
name  whatever  inscribed  in  this  hat !  "  l 

Test  of  General  Moral  Character 

If  a  witness  has  a  generally  bad  moral  character,  he  may 
also  be  discredited  as  a  witness  on  the  ground  of  probable 
prevarication. 

An  example  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in  one 
of  Rufus  Choate's  famous  cases.  In  this  case  one  of  the 
witnesses  had  been  found  guilty  of  stealing  $1700  from  the 
safe  of  his  father-in-law.  Because  he  was  a  thief,  Choate 
maintained  that  he  was  not  an  honest  man,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  believed  when  he  gave  testimony  on  other 
matters.2 

Test  of  Motive  to  Prevaricate 

If  a  witness,  finally,  has  a  motive  to  prevaricate,  he  may 
be  discredited  as  a  witness  on  the  ground  of  probable  pre- 
varication. The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  in  the  case  of 
admissions  against  interest;  that  is,  in  the  case  of  evidence 
that  runs  counter  to  the  interest  of  the  witness.  Admis- 
sions against  interest  are  regarded  as  the  strongest  kind  of 
evidence. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
one  of  Daniel  Webster's  famous  murder  cases.  In  this  case 
the  prisoner  confessed  to  the  crime,  and  his  confession  was, 
of  course,  extremely  valuable  as  an  admission  against  inter- 


1  See  Wellman's  Art  of  Cross-Examination,  pp.  162-163. 

2  See,  in  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  speech  by  Choate  On  Behalf 
of  Helen  Maria  Dalton. 


Evidence  71 

est.  The  prisoner  then  denied  the  confession;  and  his 
brother,  who  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  confes- 
sion, also  denied  it.  The  brother  was  discredited  as  a  wit- 
ness, however,  on  the  ground  that  family  pride  gave  him  a 
strong  motive  to  prevaricate.1 

Special  Tests  of  Source  for  Expert  Evidence.  —  All  the 

tests  of  consistency  and  all  the  general  tests  of  source  may 
be  applied  to  expert  evidence ;  and,  in  addition  to  these,  two 
special  tests  of  source  for  expert  evidence  may  also  be  em- 
ployed. 

These  tests  are :  Does  the  alleged  expert  display  a  spe- 
cialist's knowledge  within  the  field  of  his  alleged]  specialty?  — 
and,  Is  the  alleged  expert  generally  recognized  as  an  authority 
within  the  field  of  his  alleged  specialty  f 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  the  first  of  these 
tests  is  found  in  one  of  William  H.  Seward's  famous  cases. 
In  this  case  a  doctor  posed  as  an  expert  on  insanity  and 
claimed  to  have  visited  all  the  principal  hospitals  for  the 
insane  in  London,  Paris,  and  other  European  capitals. 
This  doctor  was  discredited,  however,  because  he  could  not 
remember  the  names  of  any  one  of  these  hospitals,  and  be- 
cause he  could  not  interpret  readily  the  charts  that  he  him- 
self produced  as  evidence.2 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  the  second  test  is 
found  in  a  recent  attempt  to  settle  the  controversy  concern- 
ing whether  Bacon  was  the  real  author  of  many  of  Shake- 
speare's plays.  This  question  arose  in  a  law  suit  that  was 
brought  before  one  of  our  State  courts,  and  the  judge  of 
this  court  attempted  to  settle  the  matter  finally  by  decid- 

1  See  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Speech  in  the  White  Murder  Case. 

2  See,  in  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  speech  by  Seward  In  Defense 
of  William  Freeman. 


72  Elements  of  Proof 

ing  in  favor  of  Bacon's  authorship.  The  authority  of  this 
judge,  however,  posing  as  an  expert  among  eminent  Shake- 
spearean scholars,  has  never  been  recognized,  and  the  result 
has  been  that  his  decision,  when  considered  as  evidence,  has 
been  ridiculed  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other. 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Evidence. — The  subject  of 
evidence  as  presented  in  this  chapter  has  involved  three 
distinct  problems:  First,  to  understand  the  general  nature 
of  evidence  as  an  element  of  proof;  second,  to  understand 
all  the  more  important  classifications  of  evidence  and  the 
use  that  may  be  made  of  each ;  and  third,  to  understand  all 
the  different  tests  of  consistency  and  of  source  that  may  be 
applied  to  alleged  evidence  to  determine  its  validity.  With 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  theory  involved  in  this  treat- 
ment of  evidence,  a  debater  should  be  able  to  choose  with 
discretion  the  evidence  that  he  will  employ  in  his  own  proof 
and  also  be  able  to  criticize  most  effectually  the  evidence 
employed  in  the  proof  of  his  opponent. 


CHAPTER  II 
ARGUMENT  * 

Importance  of  the  Study  of  Argument.  —  In  the  preceding 
chapter  on  Evidence,  both  evidence  and  argument  are  named 
as  the  means  of  proof.  Eventually  all  proof  must  be  based 
on  evidence ;  but  evidence  has  no  value  unless  it  is  employed 
in  argument  to  create  proof.  As  an  element  of  proof,  there- 
fore, argument  is  as  essential  as  evidence,  and  constitutes 
a  most  important  subject  for  consideration  in  the  art  of 
debate. 

Definition  of  Argument.  —  Argument  is  a  process  by  which 
the  mind  is  led  from  one  or  more  assumed  or  known  truths 
to  acknowledge  an  alleged  truth. 

In  common  usage,  the  term  argument  is  used  to  designate 
a  dispute  or  any  one  of  the  speeches  or  pleas  made  in  a  dis- 
pute. In  its  more  technical  usage,  however,  as  the  term  is 
employed  in  debate,  argument  denotes  rather  a  single  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  presented  in  support  of  an  alleged  truth. 

Argument,  therefore,  is  synonymous  with  reason  in  that 
it  consists  of  reason ;  but  it  differs  from  reason  in  the  fact 
that  reason  begins  with  premises  and  advances  to  a  conclusion; 
whereas,  argument  begins  with  a  conclusion  and  seeks  prem- 
ises from  which  this  conclusion  may  be  derived. 

Objects  to  Be  Sought  in  the  Study  of  Argument.  —  The 
objects  to  be  sought  in  the  study  of  argument  are :  First,  to 
understand  all  the  different  classes  of  argument  that  may  be 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Argument,  see  Appendix  A. 

73 


74  Elements  of  Proof 

used  in  debate;  and  second,  to  understand  all  the  different 
tests  that  may  be  applied  to  each  to  determine  its 
validity. 

Basis  of  the  Classification  of  Argument.  —  The  basis  of 
classifying  all  argument  rests  upon  the  nature  of  the  infer- 
ence between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion;  and  the 
nature  of  the  inference  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the 
premises  and  of  the  conclusion.  Argument  is  classified, 
therefore,  according  to  the  relation  that  exists  between  dif- 
ferent types  of  premises  and  different  types  of  conclusions.  * 

Three  Main  Divisions  of  Argument.  —  Argument,  like 
reason,  may  be  divided  into  three  main  divisions :  namely,  — 

1.  Argument  by  Deduction 

2.  Argument  by  Induction 

3.  Argument  by  Analogy 

Argument  by  deduction  consists  in  arguing  from  a  general 
truth  in  a  premise  to  a  particular  truth  in  the  conclusion. 

Argument  by  induction  consists  in  arguing  from  a  par- 
ticular truth  or  truths  in  the  premises  to  a  general  truth  in 
the  conclusion. 

Argument  by  analogy  consists  in  arguing  from  a  particular 
truth  in  a  premise  to  a  similar  particular  truth  in  the  con- 
clusion. 

Sometimes  these  three  types  of  argument  are  defined 
briefly  as  follows:  Argument  by  deduction  is  argument 
from  the  general  to  the  particular;  argument  by  induction, 
from  the  particular  to  the  general;  and  argument  by  analogy, 
from  particular  to  particular. 


1  See  page  50. 


Argument  75 

To  illustrate  the  difference  between  these  three  main 
divisions  of  argument,  the  following  examples  are  given  of 
arguments  by  deduction,  by  induction,  and  by  analogy. 

Deduction 

I.   Socrates  was  mortal ;  for 

A.  All  men  are  mortal;  and 

B.  Socrates  was  a  man. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  by  deduction, 
because  the  reasoning  employed  in  it  proceeds  from  a  general 
truth  in  a  premise  —  all  men  are  mortal  —  to  a  particular 
truth  in  the  conclusion  —  Socrates  was  mortal. 

Induction 

I.   All  men  are  mortal ;  for 
A.     Socrates  was  mortal; 
2?.     Plato  was  mortal ;  and 

C.  Aristotle  was  mortal. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  by  induction, 
because  the  reasoning  employed  in  it  proceeds  from  a  partic- 
ular truth  in  each  of  the  premises  to  a  general  truth  in  the 
conclusion. 

Analogy 

I.  Socrates  was  mortal ;  for 

A.  Plato  was  mortal ;  and 

B.  Plato  was  just  like  Socrates. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  by  analogy, 
because  the  reasoning  employed  in  it  proceeds  from  a  partic- 
ular truth  in  a  premise  —  Plato  was  mortal  —  to  a  similar 
particular  truth  in  the  conclusion  —  Socrates  was  mortal. 


\d$ 


76  Elements  of  Proof 

Table  of  the  Classes  of  Argument.  —  A  complete  table  of 
all  the  more  important  classes  of  argument  employed  in 
proof  is  given  below : 

I.  Argument  by  Deduction 

A,  Formal  Argument  by  the  Syllogism 

1.  The  Categorical  Syllogism 

2.  The  Disjunctive  Syllogism 

3.  The  Hypothetical  Syllogism 

B.  Informal  Argument  by  the  Enthymeme 

1.  Argument  from  Generalization 

2.  Argument  from  Classification 

3.  Argument  from  Authority 

4.  Argument  from  Implied  Causal  Relationship 

(a)  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability 

(b)  Argument  from  Sign 

II.  Argument  by  Induction 

A.  Perfect  Induction 

B.  Imperfect  Induction 

III.  Argument  by  Analogy 

A.  Literal  Analogy 

B.  Figurative  Analogy      , 

I.  Deduction 

Formal  and   Informal    Argument  by  Deduction.  —  The 

first  important  division  of  argument  by  deduction  distin- 
guishes formal  argument  by  means  of  the  syllogism  from 
informal  argument  by  means  of  the  enthymeme. 

Formal  argument  by  means  of  the  syllogism  is  an  elaborate 
method  of  reasoning  employed  to  show  the  complete  struc- 


Argument  77 

ture  of  an  argument ;  whereas,  informal  argument  by  means 
of  the  enthymeme  is  a  simple  method  of  reasoning  employed 
in  ordinary  thought,  speech,  or  composition. 

(A)   Formal  Argument  by  the  Syllogism 

Importance  of  Formal  Argument.  —  Though  formal  argu- 
ment is  used  less  frequently  in  actual  debate  than  informal 
argument,  it  is  nevertheless  an  extremely  important  kind  of 
argument  for  the  debater  to  study;  for  all  informal  argu- 
ment is  capable  of  expansion  into  formal  argument,  with  the 
result  that  whatever  is  implied  in  an  informal  argument  is 
laid  open  to  inspection  in  its  expanded  form.  By  means  of 
such  expansion,  the  debater  can  more  easily  test  an  informal 
argument  for  its  validity.  Formal  argument,  therefore, 
though  less  frequently  used  in  actual  debate  than  informal 
argument,  is  important;  because  it  enables  the  debater  to 
understand  better  all  the  different  informal  arguments. 

Nature  of  the  Syllogism.  —  The  syllogism,  as  it  appears 
in  formal  argument,  is  a  method  of  reasoning  that  involves 
two  premises  used  jointly  :  one  being  called  the  major  prem- 
ise and  the  other  being  called  the  minor  premise.  The  major 
premise  contains  always  a  general  law  or  principle  to  be 
applied  in  proof;  and  the  minor  premise  contains  always  a 
statement  of  fact  that  shows  the  application  of  the  general 
law  or  principle  to  the  case  in  hand.  By  virtue  of  the  major 
premise,  all  syllogisms  are  arguments  by  deduction. 

The  Categorical  Syllogism.  —  The  first  type  of  formal 
argument  to  be  considered  is  the  categorical  syllogism.  This 
kind  of  syllogism  derives  its  name  from  the  fact  that  its  con- 
clusion and  both  its  premises  are  categorical  propositions. 

A  categorical  proposition  is  one  that  defines  or  classifies 
things.     It  consists  always  of  a  statement  that  something 


78  Elements  of  Proof 

is,  or  is  not;   and  in  effect  it  states  that  something  does,  or 
does  not,  belong  to  a  certain  class  of  things. 

The  categorical  syllogism  is  founded  on  the  process  of 
classification.  It  advances  to  its  conclusion  by  showing  the 
relation  between  two  things  and  a  third  thing,  and  thereby 
showing  the  relation  that  exists  between  the  two  things 
themselves. 

An  example  of  the  categorical  syllogism  is  found  in  the 
following  argument : 
*JUo    I.   Chicago  is  a  public  corporation ;  for 

A.    Chicago  is  a  city ;  and    , 
A<mV-       B*   All  cities  are  public  corporations. 

In  this  syllogism,  the  conclusion  and  both  premises  are 
categorical  propositions.  The  second  premise  is  the  major 
premise,  because  it  states  the  general  law  or  principle  to  be 
applied  in  the  proof ;  and  the  first  premise  is  the  minor  prem- 
ise, because  it  states  the  fact  that  shows  the  application  of 
the  general  law  or  principle  to  the  case  in  hand. 

The  nature  of  the  reasoning  employed  in  a  categorical 
syllogism  may  be  illustrated  best,  perhaps,  by  reducing  to  a 
formula  the  argument  given  above.  This  argument  would 
then  appear  in  the  following  form : 

A  is  a  C;  for 

A  is  a  B  ;  and 

All  B's  are  C's. 

Technical  Terms  Employed  in  the  Categorical  Syllogism. 
—  To  understand  the  categorical  syllogism,  the  debater 
must  know  what  is  meant  by  the  major  term;  the  minor 
term;  the  middle  term;  and  a  distributed  term.  The  major 
term  is  always  the  term  found  in  the  predicate  of  the  con- 
clusion. This  term  is  then  found  in  one  of  the  premises  and 
gives  its  name  to  the  premise.     The  minor  term  is  always  the 


Argument  79 

term  found  in  the  subject  of  the  conclusion,  and  is  then 
found  in  the  other  premise,  to  which  it  gives  its  name.  The 
middle  term  is  the  term  that  is  found  in  both  premises 
but  not  in  the  conclusion.  A  distributed  term  is  one  used 
to  denote  an  entire  class  of  things  or  all  the  things  within  a 
class. 

In  the  syllogism  given  above,  for  example,  public  corpora- 
tion is  the  major  term;  Chicago  is  the  minor  term;  and 
city  is  the  middle  term.  All  cities  is  a  distributed  term; 
and  a  city  is  an  undistributed  term. 

Rules  That  Test  the  Categorical  Syllogism.  —  The  rules 
governing  the  categorical  syllogism,  by  which  its  validity 
may  be  tested,  are  : 

1.  The  syllogism  must  contain  three  and  only  three  prop- 

ositions. 

2.  The  syllogism  must  contain  three  and  only  three  terms. 

3.  The  middle  term  must  be  distributed  in  one  of  the 

premises. 

4.  Neither  major  nor  minor  term  may  be  distributed  in 

the  conclusion  unless  distributed  in  the  premises. 

5.  No  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  two  negative  prem- 

ises. 

6.  If  one  of  the  premises  is  negative,  the  conclusion  must 

be  negative. 

Diagrams  That  Test  the  Categorical  Syllogism.  —  A  very 
simple  method  of  testing  the  categorical  syllogism  is  by 
means  of  circular  diagrams.  According  to  this  method  each 
term  as  given  in  the  premises  is  represented  by  a  circle.  If 
it  is  impossible  to  determine  from  the  premises  how  these 
circles  should  be  drawn  in  relation  to  one  another,  then 
the  syllogism  is  invalid.  All  valid  syllogisms  will  be  repre- 
sented by  circles  arranged  as  in  the  following  diagrams : 


80 


Elements  of  Proof 


DIAGRAM  I 


Diagram  I  represents  the  syllogism : 

A  is  a  C ;  for 

A  is  a  B ;  and 
All  B's  are  C's. 


DIAGRAM  II 


Diagram  II  involves  three  circles,  two 
of  which,  representing  the  A's  and  B's, 
coincide.  The  syllogism  for  which  it 
stands  is : 

All  A's  are  C's ;  for 

All  the  A's  are  all  the  B's ;  and 
All  B's  are  C's. 


DIAGRAM  III  Diagram  III  involves  three  circles,  all 

of  which,  representing  the  C's,  B's,  and 
A's,  coincide.  The  syllogism  for  which 
it  stands  is : 

All  the  A's  are  all  the  C's ;  for 

All  the  A's  are  all  the  B's ;  and 
All  the  B's  are  all  the  C's. 

Diagram  IV  represents  either  one  of  the  following  syl- 
logisms : 


DIAGRAM  IV 


A  is  not  aB;  for 

A  is  not  a  C ;  and 
All  B's  are  C's. 

No  B  is  an  A  ;  for 

All  B's  are  C's ;  and 
No  C  is  an  A. 


DIAGRAM  V 


Argument  81 

Diagram  V  involves  three  circles,  two  of  which,  repre- 
senting the  C's  and  B's,  coincide.  The  syllogisms  for 
which  it  may  stand  are : 

A  is  not  a  B ;  for 

All  the  B's  are  all  the 

C's;  and 
No  C  is  an  A. 
No  B  is  an  A  ;  for 

All  the  B's  are  all  the 

C's;  and 
No  C  is  an  A. 

The  Disjunctive  Syllogism.  —  The  second  type  of  formal 
argument  to  be  considered  is  the  disjunctive  syllogism.  This 
kind  of  syllogism  derives  its  name  from  the  fact  that  its 
major  premise  consists  always  of  a  disjunctive  proposition. 

A  disjunctive  proposition  is  one  that  presents  alternative 
possibilities  connected  by  the  words  either  .  .  .  or. 

The  disjunctive  syllogism  is  one  that  is  founded  on  the 
process  of  elimination.  It  advances  to  its  conclusion  by 
enumerating  all  the  possibilities  for  the  solution  of  a  prob- 
lem and  then  eliminating  all  of  them  but  one. 

An  example  of  the  disjunctive  syllogism  is  found  in  the 
following  argument : 

I.   This  student  is  self-supporting ;  for 

A.  A  student  must  be  either  self-supporting  or  depend- 
ent somewhat  upon  others ;  and 

B.  This  student  is  in  no  way  dependent  upon  others. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  the  disjunctive  syllogism ; 
because  its  major  premise  is  a  disjunctive  proposition,  and 
the  method  of  reasoning  employed  in  the  syllogism  involves 
the  process  of  elimination, 


82  Elements  of  Proof 

Rules  That  Test  the  Disjunctive  Syllogism.  —  The  rules 
governing  the  disjunctive  syllogism,  by  which  its  validity 
may  be  tested,  are  : 

1.  The   possibilities  enumerated   in   the   major   premise 

must  be  exhaustive. 

2.  The   possibilities   enumerated   in   the   major   premise 

must  be  mutually  exclusive. 

3.  If  the  minor  premise  affirms  one  of  the  possibilities, 

the  conclusion  must  deny  the  other. 

4.  If  the  minor  premise  denies  one  of  the  possibilities, 

the  conclusion  must  affirm  the  other. 

The  Hypothetical  Syllogism.  —  The  third  type  of  formal 
argument  to  be  considered  is  the  hypothetical  syllogism. 
This  kind  of  syllogism  derives  its  name  from  the  fact  that  its 
major  premise  consists  always  of  a  hypothetical  proposition. 

A  hypothetical  proposition  is  one  in  which  the  principal 
assertion  is  made  dependent  on  a  condition. 

The  hypothetical  syllogism  is  one  that  is  founded  directly 
on  the  cause-and-effect  relation  between  things.  It  ad- 
vances to  its  conclusion  by  showing  how  facts  do,  or  do  not, 
conform  with  a  theory  of  cause-and-effect  relationship. 

An  example  of  the  hypothetical  syllogism  is  found  in  the 
following  argument : 

I.   This  man  should  be  punished ;  for 

A.  If  a  man  is  guilty  of  a  crime,  he  should  be  punished ; 
and 

B.  This  man  is  guilty  of  a  crime. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  the  hypothetical  syllogism ; 
because  its  major  premise  consists  of  a  hypothetical  propo- 
sition, and  the  method  of  reasoning  employed  in  the  syllo- 
gism is  founded  on  a  cause-and-effect  relationship. 


Argument  83 

Rules  That  Test  the  Hypothetical  Syllogism.  —  To  under- 
stand the  rules  governing  the  hypothetical  syllogism,  by 
which  its  validity  may  be  tested,  the  debater  must  first 
understand  what  is  meant  by  the  terms  antecedent  and  con- 
sequent as  applied  to  this  type  of  syllogism. 

The  antecedent  is  a  technical  term  applied  to  the  condi- 
tional clause  in  the  hypothetical  proposition;  and  the  con- 
sequent is  a  technical  term  applied  to  the  principal  clause  in 
the  hypothetical  proposition. 

The  rules  governing  this  type  of  syllogism  are : 

1.  If  the  minor  premise  affirms  the  antecedent,  the  con- 

clusion must  affirm  the  consequent. 

2.  If   the   minor   premise    denies    the    consequent,    the 

conclusion  must  deny  the  antecedent. 

3.  No  reliance  can  be  placed  on  a  conclusion  that  is  de- 

rived from  denying  the  antecedent  or  from  affirm- 
ing the  consequent. 

In  connection  with  the  third  rule,  it  should  be  noted  that 
sometimes  a  conclusion  is  true  when  an  antecedent  is  de- 
nied or  when  a  consequent  is  affirmed.  Such  a  conclusion 
can  be  true,  however,  only  when  the  antecedent  and  conse- 
quent are  interchangeable;  and  then  it  is  true,  not  on  ac- 
count of  the  premises,  but  really  in  spite  of  them. 


(B)   Informal  Argument  by  the  Enthymeme 

Informal  Argument  by  the  Enthymeme.  —  The  second 
main  division  of  deductive  argument  consists  of  informal 
argument  by  means  of  the  enthymeme. 

The  enthymeme  is  an  abbreviated  form  of  the  syllogism  in 
which  one  of  the  premises  is  expressed  and  the  other  im- 
plied. 


84  Elements  of  Proof 

Various  forms  of  the  enthymeme  are : 

1.  Argument  from  Generalization 

2.  Argument  from  Classification 

3.  Argument  from  Authority 

4.  Argument  from  Implied  Causal  Relationship 
(a)  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability 
(6)  Argument  from  Sign 

Of  these  four  forms  of  enthymeme,  the  first  employs  the 
major  premise  of  a  full  syllogism,  and  all  the  others  employ 
the  minor  premise  of  a  full  syllogism. 

These  arguments  in  all  instances  either  express  or  imply 
a  general  truth  from  which  the  particular  truth  in  the  con- 
clusion is  derived ;  and,  hence,  all  of  them  come  within  the 
main  division  of  argument  by  deduction. 

Argument  from  Generalization.  —  The  first  type  of  in- 
formal argument  to  be  considered  is  the  argument  from  gen- 
eralization.  This  type  of  argument  is  one  in  which  a  par- 
ticular truth  is  derived  from  a  single  premise  that  states  a 
general  law  or  principle. 

The  following  argument,  for  example,  taken  from  the 
Outlook  of  December  24,  1919,  is  an  instance  of  argument 
from  generalization : 

I.  The  claim  of  the  United  States  against  Mexico  is  a  proper 
subject  for  arbitration ;  because 

A.   All  claims  that  may  be  settled  by  a  money  payment 
are  proper  subjects  for  arbitration. 

Test  of  Argument  from  Generalization.  —  The  only  test 
that  can  be  applied  to  an  argument  from  generalization  in- 
volves the  problem  of  supplying  a  valid  minor  premise.  The 
one  test,  therefore,  for  this  type  of  argument  is : 


Argument  85 

1.  Does  the  general  law  or  principle  expressed  in  the 
premise  apply  to  the  particular  instance  in  the  con- 
clusion ? 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  given  above,  it 
would  demand  further  proof  maintaining  that  the  claim  of 
the  United  States  against  Mexico  was  a  claim  that  could  be 
settled  by  a  money  payment. 

Argument  from  Classification.  —  The  second  type  of  in- 
formal argument  to  be  considered  is  the  argument  from  clas- 
sification. This  type  of  argument  is  one  in  which  a  classifica- 
tion of  a  particular  thing  is  derived  from  a  single  premise 
that  gives  another  classification  of  the  same  thing. 

The  following  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
classification : 

I.  The  whale  is  not  a  fish ;  because 
A.  The  whale  is  a  mammal. 

Test  of  Argument  from  Classification.  —  The  only  test 
that  can  be  applied  to  an  argument  from  classification  in- 
volves the  problem  of  supplying  a  valid  major  premise.  The 
one  test,  therefore,  for  this  type  of  argument  is : 

1.  Is  there  any  valid  law  or  principle  that  will  connect  the 
fact  in  the  conclusion  with  the  fact  in  the  premise  ? 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  given  above,  it 
would  demand  further  proof  to  the  effect  that  no  fish  is  a 
mammal. 

Argument  from  Authority.  —  The  third  type  of  informal 
argument  to  be  considered  is  the  argument  from  authority. 
This  type  of  argument  is  one  in  which  a  particular  statement 
of  truth  is  derived  from  a  single  premise  containing  direct 
evidence  from  an  authority. 


86  Elements  of  Proof 

The  following  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
authority : 

I.  The  United  States  should  avoid  an  entangling  alliance 
with  France ;  because 

A.   George  Washington    said   that  we   should  avoid  all 
entangling  alliances  with  European  countries. 

Test  of  Argument  from  Authority.  —  Arguments  from 
authority,  like  arguments  from  classification,  are  tested  by 
an  attempt  to  supply  a  valid  major  premise.  The  one  test, 
therefore,  for  this  type  of  argument  is : 

1.   Is  whatever  the  authority  says  on  the  matter  in  dispute 
true?  , 

This  test  may  be  applied  by  using  any  one  of  the  tests  of 
consistency  in  connection  with  other  statements  of  the  same 
authority ;  or  it  may  be  applied  by  using  any  one  of  the  tests 
of  source  in  connection  with  the  authority  himself.1 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  given  above,  it 
would  demand  further  proof  to  the  effect  that  George  Wash- 
ington was  never  mistaken  in  his  statements  on  foreign  pol- 
icy; or  that  George  Washington  was  fully  qualified  as  a 
witness  to  speak  on  matters  of  foreign  policy. 

Argument  from  Implied  Causal  Relationship.  —  The 
fourth  type  of  informal  argument  to  be  considered  is  the 
argument  from  implied  causal  relationship.  This  type  of 
argument  consists  of  two  distinct  classes :    namely,  — 

1.  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability 

2.  Argument  from  Sign 

These  two  classes  of  argument  are  distinguished  in  the 
following     way.      Argument    from     antecedent     probability 


1  See  pages  61-62. 


Argument  87 

consists  in  argument  from  cause  to  effect;    and  argument 
from  sign  consists  in  argument  from  effect  to  cause. 

Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability.  —  Argument  from 
antecedent  probability  proceeds  from  a  single  premise  express- 
ing a  fact  that  is  a  cause  for  the  existence  of  the  fact  ex- 
pressed in  the  conclusion.  This  type  of  argument  relies  for 
its  premise,  therefore,  on  a  fact  prior  to  the  alleged  fact  in 
the  conclusion. 

The  following  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
antecedent  probability : 

I.  A  certain  man  is  likely  to  have  typhoid  fever ;  for 

A.  The  water-supply  in  his  community  is  known  to  be 
contaminated. 

In  this  argument,  the  premise  contains  a  cause:  a  con- 
taminated water-supply;  and  the  conclusion  contains  an 
effect :  typhoid  fever.  The  argument,  therefore,  is  an  argu- 
ment from  cause  to  effect,  and  is  an  example  of  argument 
from  antecedent  probability. 

Argument  from  Sign.  —  Argument  from  sign  is  the  con- 
verse of  argument  from  antecedent  probability,  and  pro- 
ceeds from  a  single  premise  expressing  a  fact  that  is  an  effect 
of  the  alleged  fact  in  the  conclusion.  This  type  of  argument 
relies  for  its  premise,  therefore,  on  a  fact  subsequent  to  the 
alleged  fact  in  the  conclusion. 

The  following  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
sign: 

I.  The  water-supply  of  a  community  is  contaminated ;  for 
A.  A  man  living  in  this  community  has  typhoid  fever. 

In  this  argument,  the  premise  contains  an  effect :  typhoid 
fever;  and  the  conclusion  contains  a  cause:  a  contaminated 
water-supply.    The   argument,   therefore,   is   an   argument 


88  Elements  of  Proof 

from  effect  to  cause,  and  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
sign. 

Tests  of  Argument  from  Implied  Causal  Relationship.  — 

Arguments  from  implied  causal  relationship  are  tested  first 
by  attempts  to  supply  a  major  premise  or  a  chain  of  reason- 
ing between  the  premise  and  the  conclusion  of  the  argument ; 
and  then  by  tests  of  the  validity  of  the  major  premise  or  of 
the  chain  of  reasoning. 

The  tests  for  this  type  of  argument  may  be  divided  into 
three  groups  :  those  that  apply  to  both  antecedent  probabil- 
ity and  sign;  those  that  apply  especially  to  antecedent 
probability ;  and  those  that  apply  especially  to  sign. 

I.  Tests  of  Both  Antecedent  Probability  and  Sign 

A.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  between  the  fact  in 

the  premise  and  the  fact  in  the  conclusion  ? 

B.  Does   any   counteracting   cause   appear   that   would 

prevent  the  alleged  effect? 

II.  Special  Tests  of  Antecedent  Probability 

A.  Is  the  cause  sufficient  to  produce  the  alleged  effect? 

B.  Would  not  the  cause  produce  a  different  effect  ? 

III.  Special  Tests  of  Sign 

A.  Is  the  effect  sufficient  to  have  been  produced  by 

the  alleged  cause? 

B.  Could  not  the  effect  have  been  produced  by  a  dif- 

ferent cause  ? 

The  Test  for  Causal  Connection.  —  The  test  for  causal 
connection  in  an  argument  from  antecedent  probability  or 
sign  demands  always  that  a  general  law  or  principle  or  a 
clear  chain  of  reasoning  be  inserted  between  the  given  prem- 
ise and  the  given  conclusion. 


Argument  89 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  antecedent 
probability  given  above,  it  would  expand  this  argument  in 
one  of  the  following  ways  : 

Insertion  of  General  Law  or  Principle 

I.   A  certain  man  is  likely  to  have  typhoid  fever ;  for 

A.  Whenever  the  water-supply  of  a  community  is  known 
to  be  contaminated,  a  man  living  in  that  community 
is  likely  to  have  typhoid  fever ;  and 

B.  The  water-supply  of  this  man's  community  is  known 
to  be  contaminated. 

Insertion  of  Chain  of  Reasoning 

I.   A  certain  man  is  likely  to  have  typhoid  fever ;  for 
A.   He  has  taken  typhoid  germs  into  his  system ;  for 
1.   The  water-supply  in  his  community  is  known  to  be 
contaminated. 
In  these  two  illustrations,  the  test  for  causal  connection 
has  been  applied  to  an  argument  from  antecedent  probabil- 
ity ;  but  it  could  be  applied  just  as  effectively  to  an  argument 
from  sign. 

The  Test  for  Counteracting  Cause.  — The  test  for  counter- 
acting  cause  involves  an  attempt  to  show  that  some  fact,  not 
taken  into  consideration,  would  prevent  the  given  cause 
from  working  out  to  its  alleged  effect. 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  antecedent 
probability  given  above,  it  would  involve  an  attempt  to 
show  some  such  counteracting  cause  as  the  following: 
That  the  man  in  question  always  sterilized  his  drinking 
water ;  or  that  he  had  been  inoculated  for  typhoid. 

This  test  could  be  applied  just  as  effectively  to  an  argu- 
ment from  sign. 


90  Elements  of  Proof 

The  Test  for  Sufficient  Cause.  —  The  test  for  sufficient 
cause  involves  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  alleged  effect 
could  not  follow  from  the  cause  or  causes  mentioned,  but 
would  require  other  causes  acting  jointly  with  the  given 
cause  or  causes. 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  antecedent 
probability  given  above,  it  would  involve  an  attempt  to 
show  that  typhoid  fever  would  not  follow  merely  from  the 
fact  that  the  water-supply  was  contaminated ;  but  that 
other  causes  acting  jointly  with  this  must  be  shown,  such  as, 
for  example :  That  the  man  in  question  drank  from  the 
contaminated  water-supply,  or  that  his  food  was  infected 
from  this  water-supply,  and  that  he  himself  was  in  a  weak- 
ened physical  condition  to  be  affected  by  the   typhoid  germ. 

This  test  is  applied  only  to  arguments  from  antecedent 
probability. 

The  Test  for  a  Different  Effect.  —  The  test  for  a  different 
effect  involves  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  given  cause  would 
produce  an  entirely  different  effect. 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  antecedent 
probability  given  above,  it  would  involve  an  attempt  to 
show  that  the  contaminated  water-supply,  being  a  known 
fact,  would  not  make  probable  the  appearance  of  typhoid  in 
a  man  who  lived  in  the  community ;  because  the  knowledge 
of  this  fact  would  lead  every  man  to  take  more  than  ordinary 
precautions ;  and,  hence,  this  contaminated  water  would  be 
a  source  of  health  rather  than  disease. 

This  test  is  applied  generally  to  arguments  from  antece- 
dent probability,  though  sometimes  it  may  also  be  applied 
to  arguments  from  sign. 

The  Test  for  Sufficient  Effect.  —  The  test  for  sufficient 
effect  involves  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  alleged  effect 


Argument  91 

could  not  follow  from  the  cause  or  causes  mentioned,  unless 
other  joint  effects,  not  taken  into  consideration,  also  fol- 
lowed. 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  sign  given 
above,  it  would  involve  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  water- 
supply  of  a  community  could  not  be  contaminated,  if  only 
one  case  of  typhoid  appeared ;  but  that  many  cases  of  ty- 
phoid would  have  to  be  reported,  as  well  as  much  other  sick- 
ness of  the  same  general  nature. 

This  test  is  applied  only  to  arguments  from  sign. 

The  Test  for  a  Different  Cause.  —  The  test  for  a  different 
cause  involves  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  alleged  effect 
could  have  been  produced  by  an  entirely  different  cause. 

If  this  test  were  applied  to  the  argument  from  sign  given 
above,  it  would  involve  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  given 
case  of  typhoid  fever  need  not  have  been  caused  by  a  con- 
taminated water-supply ;  but  might  have  been  caused  by  a 
contaminated  milk-supply,  by  lack  of  cleanliness  in  the 
preparation  of  food,  or  by  unsanitary  living  accommoda- 
tions. 

This  test  is  applied  only  to  arguments  from  sign. 

II.  Induction 

Argument  by  Induction.  —  The  second  main  division  of 
argument  consists  of  argument  by  induction.  This  type  of 
argument  is  then  divided  again  into  two  subdivisions,  known 
as: 

1.  Perfect  Induction ;  and 

2.  Imperfect  Induction. 

Distinction  between  Perfect  and  Imperfect  Induction.  — 
The  distinction  between  perfect  and  imperfect  induction 


92  Elements  of  Proof 

consists  in  the  fact  that  perfect  induction  establishes  a  gen- 
eral truth  by  a  complete  enumeration  of  all  possible  instances 
to  which  this  general  truth  may  apply;  whereas,  imperfect 
induction  attempts  to  establish  a  general  truth  by  only  a 
partial  enumeration  of  all  possible  instances. 

To  illustrate  the  distinction  between  these  two  kinds  of 
argument,  the  following  examples  are  given  of  perfect  and 
imperfect  induction. 

Perfect  Induction 

I.  All  New  England  States  have  large  manufacturing  inter- 
ests; for 

A.  Massachusetts  has  large  manufacturing  interests; 

B.  So  has  Rhode  Island ; 

C.  So  has  Connecticut ; 

D.  So  has  New  Hampshire ; 

E.  So  has  Vermont ;  and 

F.  So  has  Maine. 

Imperfect  Induction 

I.   All  New  England  States  have  large  manufacturing  in- 
terests; for 
A.   Massachusetts  has  large  manufacturing  interests. 

Tests  of  Argument  by  Induction.  —  The  tests  that  are 
commonly  applied  to  arguments  by  induction  are : 

1 .  Is  there  any  negative  instance  ? 

2.  Are  the  given  instances  typical  ? 

3.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  involved  ? 

4.  Are  there   sufficient   instances  to  warrant  a  general 

conclusion  ? 

The  Test  of  a  Negative  Instance.  — The  first  test  to  be 
applied  to  all  arguments  by  induction  is  the  test  of  a  negative 


Argument  93 

instance.  This  test  corresponds  with  the  old  adage  that 
the  exception  proves  the  rule,  in  the  sense  that  it  tests  the 
rule.  If  a  single  negative  instance  is  found,  the  argument  is 
invalid. 

This  test  might  be  applied  to  the  following  argument : 

I.   All  wars  of  the  United  States  have  been  undertaken  to 
promote  freedom ;  for 

A.  The  Revolutionary  War  was  undertaken  to  promote 
freedom ; 

B.  So  was  the  War  of  1812 ; 

C.  So  was  the  Civil  War ; 
P.   So  was  the  Spanish  War ; 
E.  So  was  the  World  War. 

The  Mexican  War,  however,  was  entered  upon  to  promote 
slavery,  and  this  single  negative  instance  destroys  the  valid- 
ity of  the  whole  argument. 

The  Test  of  Typical  Instances.  —  The  second  test  that 
may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  induction  is  the  test  of 
typical  instances.  This  test  involves  an  attempt  to  show 
that  the  instances  given  are  chosen  because  they  are  espe- 
cially favorable ;  whereas,  most  instances  might  not  be  so 
favorable. 

This  test  could  be  applied  to  the  following  argument : 

I.   All  Mohammedan  nations  are  capable  of  developing  a 
high  state  of  civilization  ;  for 

A.  The  Moors  in  Spain  developed  a  high  state  of  civil- 
ization. 

In  applying  this  test  to  the  foregoing  argument,  a  per- 
son might  very  justly  inquire  if  the  Moors  in  Spain  were 
typical  of  the  many  savage  Mohammedan  tribes  of  Africa, 


94  Elements  of  Proof 

Asia,  the  South  Sea  Islands,  and  Australia ;  for  are  they 
not  the  only  shining  example  of  achievement  in  civilization 
among  all  the  nations  of  the  Mohammedan  faith  ? 

The  Test  of  Causal  Connection.  —  The  third  test  that 
may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  induction  is  the  test  of 
causal  connection.  This  test  involves  an  attempt  to  show 
that  there  is  no  cause-and-effect  relation  between  the  terms 
employed  in  the  conclusion  or  in  the  premises ;  and  usually 
it  consists  in  a  challenge  to  show  any  such  causal  relation  by 
establishing  a  clear  chain  of  reasoning  between  these  terms. 
When  general  laws  or  principles  cannot  meet  this  test,  they 
often  constitute  popular  superstitions. 

Before  General  Grant's  second  election  to  the  presidency 
of  the  United  States,  the  following  argument,  commonly 
advanced  by  politicians,  could  have  been  subjected  to  this 
test: 

I.  To  be  elected  for  a  second  term,  presidents  of  the  United 
States  must  have  no  middle  name ;  for 

A.  Washington  had  no  middle  name ; 

B.  Neither  did  Jefferson ; 

C.  Neither  did  Madison ; 

D.  Neither  did  Monroe ; 

E.  Neither  did  Jackson ;  and 

F.  Neither  did  Lincoln. 

This  argument  could  have  been  tested  at  any  time  by  a 
challenge  to  show  a  causal  connection  between  having  a  mid- 
dle name  and  being  reelected  to  the  presidency.  No  clear- 
cut  chain  of  reasoning  can  be  established  between  these 
terms;  and  the  general  conclusion  concerning  them  con- 
stituted, therefore,  nothing  more  than  a  mere  popular  super- 
stition. 


Argument  95 

The  Test  of  Sufficient  Instances.  —  The  fourth  test  that 
may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  induction  is  the  test  of 
sufficient  instances.  This  test  is  employed  when  negative 
instances  are  unavailable  and  yet  appear  to  be  possible  or 
probable.  It  consists  in  showing  the  possibility  of  negative 
instances  among  the  many  instances  that  have  not  been 
observed.  The  proper  proportion  of  instances  to  be  cited 
depends  altogether  upon  the  probability  of  a  causal  connec- 
tion between  the  terms  in  the  conclusion. 

In  the  following  argument,  for  example,  few  instances 

need  to  be  cited,  because  a  causal  connection  between  the 

terms  of  the  conclusion  is  extremely  probable : 

I.   The  tides  are  always  highest  when  the  moon  is  full ;  for 

A.   In  several  instances  this  has  been  observed  to  be  true. 

But  in  the  following  argument  many  more  instances  need 
to  be  cited,  because  a  causal  connection  between  the  terms 
of  the  conclusion  is  not  so  probable : 

I.   Insane  persons  are  always  most  abnormal  when  the  moon 
is  full ;  for 
A.   In  several  instances  this  has  been  observed  to  be  true. 

III.  Analogy 

Argument  by  Analogy.  —  The  third  main  division  of  ar- 
gument consists  of  argument  by  analogy.  This  type  of  argu- 
ment is  based  on  the  theory  that  two  things  similar  in  one  or 
more  respects  are  likely  to  be  similar  in  another  respect. 
Like  argument  by  induction,  argument  by  analogy  has  also 
two  subdivisions,  known  as : 

1.  Literal  Analogy ;  and 

2.  Figurative  Analogy. 

Distinction  between  Literal  and  Figurative  Analogy.  — 
The  distinction  between  argument  from  literal  analogy  and 


96  Elements  of  Proof 

argument  from  figurative  analogy  consists  in  the  fact  that 
argument  from  literal  analogy  is  based  on  a  similarity  between 
things  in  the  same  class;  whereas,  argument  from  figurative 
analogy  is  based  on  a  similarity  between  the  relationships  of 
things  in  very  different  classes. 

To  illustrate  the  distinction  between  these  two  kinds  of 
argument,  the*  following  examples  are  given  of  literal  and 
figurative  analogy : 

Literal  Analogy 

I.   Emperor  William's  plan  of  world-conquest  was  doomed 

to  failure ;  because 

A.   Napoleon  failed  in  a  similar  undertaking. 

This  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from  literal 
analogy,  because  the  argument  is  based  on  a  similarity  be- 
tween two  plans  of  world-conquest  by  two  emperors,  both 
of  which  plans  belong  to  the  same  class  of  things. 

Figurative  Analogy 

I.  You  shouldn't  change  generals  in  the  middle  of  a  cam- 
paign; because 

A.  You  wouldn't  swap  horses  in  the  middle  of  a  stream. 
This  argument  is  an  example  of  argument  from  figurative 
analogy,  because  the  argument  is  based  on  a  similarity  be- 
tween the  relationships  of  things  in  very  different  classes: 
namely,  changing  generals  in  the  middle  of  a  campaign,  and 
swapping  horses  in  the  middle  of  a  stream.1 

Any  argument  based  on  precedent  is  an  example  of  argu- 
ment from  literal  analogy;  and  any  argument  based  on  a 
simile,  a  metaphor,  a  proverb,  a  fable,  an  allegory,  a  parable, 

JFor  further  examples,  see  Persuasion  through  Striking  Analogies, 
Chapter  II,  Part  IV. 


Argument  97 

or  an  anecdote  is  an  example  of  argument  from  figurative 
analogy. 

Tests  of  Argument  by  Analogy.  —  The  tests  that  may  be 
applied  to  arguments  by  analogy  are : 

1.  Are  there  any  negative  instances? 

2.  Is  there  any  essential  difference  between  the  two  in- 

stances ? 

3.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  involved  ? 

4.  Are   there   sufficient   similar   instances   to  warrant   a 

general  conclusion? 

These  tests,  it  will  be  observed,  are  essentially  similar  to 
the  tests  of  argument  by  induction.  This  similarity  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  no  argument  by  analogy  is  valid,  unless  some 
general  law  or  principle  covers  both  the  instance  in  the  prem- 
ise and  the  instance  in  the  conclusion.  The  tests  of  anal- 
ogy, therefore,  like  the  tests  of  induction,  are  intended  to 
determine  whether  or  not  any  such  general  law  or  principle 
exists. 

The  Test  of  Negative  Instances.  —  The  first  test  that 
may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  analogy  is  the  test  of  nega- 
tive instances.  This  test  demands  that  there  be  a  general 
agreement  among  all  the  instances  similar  to  the  instance 
given  in  the  premise ;  for  otherwise  no  general  law  or  prin- 
ciple can  be  formulated  to  cover  instances  like  the  one  in  the 
premise  and  the  one  in  the  conclusion.  A  negative  instance 
does  not  always  destroy  an  argument  by  analogy;  but  it, 
at  least,  greatly  impairs  the  probability  of  the  conclu- 
sion. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
connection  with  the  following  argument : 


98  Elements  of  Proof 

I.   Government  ownership  and  operation  of  railroads  in  the 

United  States  would  prove  successful ;  for 

A.  Government  ownership  and  operation  of  railroads  in 
Germany  proved  successful. 

This  argument  is  weak  on  account  of  negative  instances 
found  in  the  experience  of  Italy,  France,  and  Russia,  where 
government  ownership  and  operation  have  not  proved  to  be 
entirely  successful. 

The  Test  of  Essential  Difference. — The  second  test 
that  may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  analogy  is  the  test  of 
essential  difference.  This  test  demands  that  the  instances 
given  in  the  conclusion  and  in  the  premise  be  similar  in  all 
essential  respects ;  for,  if  these  instances  are  not  essentially 
similar,  no  valid  general  law  or  principle  can  be  formulated 
to  cover  them  both.  Any  essential  difference  between  the 
instance  in  the  premise  and  the  instance  in  the  conclusion 
completely  destroys  an  argument  by  analogy. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
connection  with  the  following  argument : 

I.   Residents  of  Washington,  D.  C,  should  be  allowed  to 
vote  in  national  elections ;  for 
A.   Residents  of  St.  Louis  are  allowed  to  vote  in  such 

elections. 
This  argument  is  invalid  because  there  is  an  essential 
difference  between  the  residents  of  Washington  and  the 
residents  of  St.  Louis,  in  that  the  residents  of  Washington  are 
generally  either  Federal  office-holders  or  dependents  of  Fed- 
eral office-holders ;  whereas,  the  residents  of  St.  Louis  are 
not  generally  Federal  office-holders  or  dependents  of 
Federal  office-holders. 

When  this  test  is  applied,  great  care  must  be  observed  to 
distinguish   clearly  between  what   constitutes  an  essential 


Argument  99 

difference  and  what  constitutes  an  incidental  difference. 
An  essential  difference  always  involves  facts  that  have  a 
definite  causal  connection  with  dissimilar  conclusions. 

To  illustrate :  In  connection  with  the  argument  given 
above,  the  fact  that  Washington  is  an  eastern  city  and  St. 
Louis  a  middle-western  city  might  be  used  in  an  attempt  to 
apply  the  test  of  essential  difference.  This  difference,  how- 
ever, is  merely  incidental,  rather  than  essential,  to  any  con- 
clusion concerning  whether  or  not  the  residents  of  Washing- 
ton should  vote  in  national  elections ;  and  such  a  difference, 
therefore,  could  not  be  employed  effectively  to  destroy  this 
argument  by  analogy. 

The  Test  of  Causal  Connection.  —  The  third  test  that 
may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  analogy  is  the  test  of  causal 
connection.  This  test  demands  that  there  be  a  cause-and- 
effect  relationship  between  the  terms  employed  in  the  argu- 
ment, rather  than  a  mere  association  by  chance.  To  meet 
this  test,  a  valid  general  law  or  principle  must  be  formulated 
to  cover  this  relationship,  or  a  clear  chain  of  reasoning  must 
be  constructed  to  show  a  causal  connection  between  these 
terms.  If  such  a  causal  connection  cannot  be  shown,  then 
the  argument  depends  on  chance,  and  its  validity  is  doubtful. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
connection  with  the  following  arguments  : 

I.   The  next  great  epoch  in  English  literature  will  occur  at 
about  the  year  2000 ;  for 

A.  There  was  a  great  epoch  at  the  time  of  Chaucer 
about  the  year  1400 ; 

B.  There  was  a  great  epoch  at  the  time  of  Shakespeare 
about  the  year  1600 ;  and 

C.  There  was  a  great  epoch  at  the  time  of  Wordsworth 
about  the  year  1800. 


100  Elements  of  Proof 

In  this  argument  by  analogy,  an  effort  is  apparent  to 
build  an  inference  on  an  assumed  general  law  or  principle 
that  great  epochs  in  English  literature  occur  only  at  inter- 
vals of  two  hundred  years  and  at  the  beginning  of  centuries. 
Such  a  general  law  or  principle  is  not  valid,  however,  because 
there  was  no  great  epoch  about  the  year  1200  or  about  the 
year  1000,  and  there  was  a  great  epoch  at  the  time  of  Milton 
about  the  year  1660.  This  general  law  or  principle  does 
not  provide,  therefore,  a  necessary  causal  connection  be- 
tween a  great  epoch  and  the  year  2000. 

The  validity  of  this  argument  is  doubtful,  also,  because 
no  clear  chain  of  reasoning  can  be  constructed  to  show  that 
the  greatness  of  Chaucer's  period  was  caused  by  the  fact 
that  it  came  at  about  1400;  and  that  the  greatness  of 
Shakespeare's  period  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  it  came 
two  hundred  years  after  Chaucer ;  and  that  the  greatness 
of  Wordsworth's  period  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  it  came 
two  hundred  years  after  Shakespeare.  In  other  words,  no 
chain  of  reasoning  can  be  constructed  to  show  a  causal  con- 
nection between  dates  arranged  with  two-hundred-year 
intervals  and  the  appearance  of  great  epochs  in  litera- 
ture. 

If  there  is  any  connection  between  these  facts,  it  is  by 
chance  association  rather  than  by  a  cause-and-effect 
relation;  and  an  argument  by  analogy  that  is  based  on 
such  an  association  must  have  only  doubtful  validity. 

The  Test  of  Sufficient  Similar  Instances.  —  The  fourth 
test  that  may  be  applied  to  arguments  by  analogy  is  the 
test  of  sufficient  similar  instances.  This  test,  like  the  corre- 
sponding test  for  induction,  is  employed  when  negative  in- 
stances are  unavailable  and  yet  appear  to  be  possible  or 
probable.     It  consists  in  showing  the  possibility  of  negative 


Argument'  ,,   ,       101 

instances  among  the  many  instances  that  have  not  been 
observed. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  this  test  is  found  in 
connection  with  the  following  argument : 

I.   One  of  this  company  of  thirteen  sitting  at  a  table  will 
soon  die ;  for 
A.    On  a   single   previous    occasion   when   thirteen    sat 

together  at  a  table,  one  of  their  number  died  soon 

afterward. 

This  argument  by  analogy  has  doubtful  validity,  because 
it  employs  only  one  instance  to  support  an  assumed  general 
law  or  principle  that  involves  no  apparent  cause-and-effect 
relationship  between  its  terms.  It  is  subject  to  the  test  of 
sufficient  similar  instances,  therefore ;  because  its  conclusion 
is  somewhat  improbable;  and  because,  among  the  thou- 
sands of  unobserved  instances,  many  negative  instances  are 
likely  to  exist. 

Table  of  Tests  of  Argument.  —  The  various  tests  that  may 
be  applied  to  all  the  different  classes  of  argument  constitute 
one  of  the  most  important  means  of  determining  what  proof 
should  be  avoided  in  one's  own  case  and  what  proof  is  open 
to  attack  in  the  case  of  an  opponent.  These  tests,  as  they 
appear  in  the  following  table,  should  be  familiar,  therefore, 
to  every  student  of  debate. 

I.   Tests  of  the  Categorical  Syllogism 

A.  Does   the   syllogism   contain   three   and   only  three 

propositions  ? 

B.  Does   the   syllogism   contain   three   and   only   three 

terms  ? 

C.  Is  the  middle  term  distributed  in  one  of  the  prem- 

ises ? 


102  Elements  of  Proof 

D.  Is  either  the  major  or  the  minor  term  distributed  in 

the  conclusion  when  not  distributed  in  the  prem- 
ises? 

E.  Is  the  conclusion  drawn  from  two  negative  premises  ? 

F.  Is  the  conclusion  negative,  if  one  of  the  premises  is 

negative  ? 

II.  Tests  of  the  Disjunctive  Syllogism 

A.  Are  the  possibilities  enumerated  exhaustive? 

B.  Are  the  possibilities  enumerated  mutually  exclusive  ? 

C.  Is  the  conclusion  negative,  when  the  minor  premise 

is  affirmative  ? 

D.  Is  the  conclusion  affirmative,  when  the  minor  prem- 

ise is  negative  ? 

III.  Tests  of  the  Hypothetical  Syllogism 

A.  Does  the  conclusion  affirm  the  consequent,  when 

the  minor  premise  affirms  the  antecedent  ? 

B.  Does  the  conclusion  deny  the  antecedent,  when 

the  minor  premise  denies  the  consequent  ? 

C.  Is  the  conclusion  derived  from  affirming  the  ante- 

cedent or  from  denying  the  consequent  ? 

IV.  Test  of  Argument  from  Generalization 

A.   Does  the  general  law  or  principle  apply  to  the  par- 
ticular instance  in  the  conclusion  ? 

V.  Test  of  Argument  from  Classification 

A.  Is  there  any  valid  law  or  principle  that  will  connect 
the  fact  in  the  conclusion  with  the  fact  in  the 
premise  ? 

VI.  Test  of  Argument  from  Authority 

A.   Is  whatever  the  authority  says  on  the   matter  in 
dispute  true  ? 


Argument  103 

VII.  Tests  of  Argument  from  Implied  Causal  Relationship 

A.  Tests  for  Both  Antecedent  Probability  and  Sign 

1.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  between  the 

fact  in  the  premise  and  the  fact  in  the  con- 
clusion ? 

2.  Does    any    counteracting    cause    appear    that 

would  prevent  the  alleged  effect  ? 

B.  Special  Tests  for  Antecedent  Probability 

1.  Is  the  cause  sufficient  to  produce  the  alleged 

effect? 

2.  Would  not  the  cause  produce  a  different  effect? 

C.  Special  Tests  for  Sign 

1.  Is  the  effect  sufficient  to  have  been  produced 

by  the  alleged  cause  ? 

2.  Could  not  the  effect  have  been  produced  by  a 

different  cause  ? 

VIII.  Tests  of  Argument  by  Induction 

A.  Is  there  any  negative  instance ? 

B.  Are  the  given  instances  typical  ? 

C.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  involved  ? 

D.  Are  there  sufficient  instances  to  warrant  a  gen- 

eral conclusion  ? 

IX.  Tests  of  Argument  by  Analogy 

A .  Are  there  any  negative  instances  ? 

B.  Is  there  any  essential  difference  between  the  two 

instances  ? 

C.  Is  there  any  causal  connection  involved  ? 

D.  Are  there  sufficient  similar  instances  to  warrant  a 

general  conclusion  ? 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Argument.  —  The  subject  of 
argument,  as  treated  in  this  chapter,  has  been  approached 


104  Elements  of  Proof 

from  three  different  points  of  view :  First,  what  is  the  gen- 
eral nature  of  argument  ?  —  Second,  what  are  the  various 
classes  of  argument  ?  —  And  third,  what  are  the  tests  to  be 
applied  to  each  of  the  various  classes?  Since  argument  is 
one  of  the  two  essential  elements  of  proof,  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  this  subject  from  these  different  points  of  view  is 
indispensable  to  all  students  of  debate  who  are  ambitious  to 
acquire  a  complete  mastery  of  the  art. 


CHAPTER  III 
FALLACY1 

Importance  of  the  Study  of  Fallacy.  —  No  consideration 
in  debate  is  more  important  than  that  proof  should  be  en- 
tirely free  from  fallacy ;  for  whenever  the  element  of  fallacy 
enters  into  proof,  no  reliance  may  be  placed  on  its  conclu- 
sions. Every  debater,  therefore,  should  be  thoroughly 
familiar  with  the  subject  of  fallacy,  in  order  that  he  may 
be  able  to  avoid  fallacy  in  his  own  proof  and  expose  it  in 
the  proof  of  his  opponents. 

Definition  of  Fallacy.  —  Fallacy  consists  of  any  defect  in 
proof  that  destroys  its  validity. 

Detection  of  Fallacy. — To  detect  a  fallacy  in  proof,  a 
debater  may  employ  either  one  of  two  methods.  He  may, 
for  instance,  apply  to  the  evidence  and  argument  involved 
in  proof  the  tests  previously  enumerated  for  determining 
their  validity ; 2  or  he  may  examine  the  proof  to  see  whether 
it  contains  any  defect  that  conforms  with  the  definition  of  a 
particular  fallacy. 

Three  General  Divisions  of  Fallacy  in  Logic.  —  The  sub- 
ject of  fallacy,  as  treated  in  logic,  usually  involves  three 
general  divisions  :  namely,  — 

1.  Fallacies  of  Interpretation ; 

2.  Formal  Fallacies ;  and 

3.  Material  Fallacies. 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Fallacy  see  Appendix  A. 

2  See  pages  61-62,  101-103. 

105 


106  Elements  of  Proof 

Fallacies  of  interpretation  are  those  that  arise  from  errors 
of  understanding  in  respect  to  the  meaning  or  implication 
of  propositions. 

Formal  fallacies  are  those  that  arise  from  errors  in  the 
application  of  rules  for  the  syllogism.1 

And  material  fallacies  are  those  that  arise  from  errors  in 
regard  to  the  nature  and  relationship  of  matters  involved 
in  proof. 

Among  these  three  general  divisions  of  fallacy,  those  that 
may  be  used  most  effectively  in  debate  are  material  fal- 
lacies. Only  fallacies  of  this  type,  therefore,  will  be  con- 
sidered in  detail;  and,  if  the  debater  is  interested  in  the 
study  of  other  fallacies,  he  may  find  a  thorough  treatment 
of  them  in  almost  any  text  on  logic.2 

Three  Main  Classes  of  Material  Fallacies.  —  For  the 
general  division  of  material  fallacies,  many  different  methods 
of  classification  have  been  used;  but  the  method  that  is 
likely  to  prove  most  serviceable  in  debate  is  one  that  dis- 
tinguishes fallacies  according  to  whether  they  represent 
defects  of  the  premise,  defects  of  the  inference,  or  defects 
of  the  conclusion. 

According  to  such  a  method  of  classification,  all  material 
fallacies  may  be  represented  under  three  main  classes : 
namely,  — 

1.  The  Fallacy  of  Begging  the  Question ; 

2.  The  Fallacy  of  Non-Sequitur;  and 

3.  The  Fallacy  of  Argument  Beside  the  Point. 

The  fallacy  of  begging  the  question  represents  a  defect 
in  a  premise ;  the  fallacy  of  non-sequitur  represents  a  defect 

1  See  pages  79,  82,  83. 

2  See  Creighton's  Introductory  Logic  (Macmillan,  1907),  pp.  152-171. 


Fallacy  107 

in  an  inference;    and  the  fallacy  of  argument  beside  the 
point  represents  a  defect  in  a  conclusion.1 

Table  of  Material  Fallacies.  —  A  complete  table  of  all  the 
more  important  material  fallacies  to  be  avoided  in  debate 
is  given  below : 

I.   Fallacies  of  Begging  the  Question 

A.  Simple  Iteration 

B.  Iteration  by  Generalization' 

C.  Argument  in  a  Circle 

D.  Non-Evident  Premise 

II.  Fallacies  of  Non-Sequitur 

A.  Post  Hoc 

B.  Composition  or  Division 

C.  Accident 

D.  Equivocation 

III.  Fallacies  of  Argument  Beside  the  Point 

A.  Argumentum  ad  Hominem 

B.  Argumentum  ad  Populum 

C.  Argumentum  ad  Ignorantiam 

D.  Argumentum  ad  Verecundiam 

I.  Begging  the  Question 

Fallacies  of  Begging  the  Question.  —  The  first  main  class 
of  material  fallacies  consists  in  begging  the  question.  Fal- 
lacies of  this  type  are  those  that  arise  from  assuming  in  a 
premise  the  truth  of  a  conclusion  to  be  proved. 

The  Fallacy  of  Simple  Iteration.  —  One  of  the  most  com- 
mon forms  of  begging  the  question  is  found  in  the  fallacy  of 
simple  iteration.     This  type  of  fallacy  is  one  in  which  a  con- 

1  See  page  50. 


108  Elements  of  Proof 

elusion  to  be  proved  is  used  to  prove  itself  by  being  repeated 
immediately,  either  verbatim,  or  with  different  phraseology. 
A  formula  that  may  be  used  to  represent  this  kind  of  fallacy 
appears  in  the  following  argument : 

I.  This  thing  is  so ;  because 
A.   It  is  so. 

The  fallacy  of.  simple  iteration  rarely  appears  in  such  an 
obvious  form,  however,  as  that  represented  in  the  formula 
given  above ;  but  more  commonly  appears  in  the  form  of  a 
rhetorical  question,  or  with  a  difference  in  phraseology  be- 
tween the  conclusion  and  the  premise. 

The  following  argument  illustrates  the  fallacy  of  simple 
iteration  by  means  of  the  rhetorical  question : 

I.   The  State  should  establish  an  old-age  pension  system ;  for 
A.   Is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  State  to  establish  such  a  sys- 
tem? 

The  following  argument  illustrates  the  fallacy  of  simple 
iteration  by  means  of  a  difference  in  phraseology : 

I.   The  State  should  establish  an  old-age  pension  system ;  for 
A.  An  old-age  pension  system  should  most  certainly  be 
established  by  the  State. 

The  Fallacy  of  Iteration  by  Generalization.  —  Another 
common  form  of  begging  the  question  is  found  in  the  fallacy 
of  iteration  by  generalization.  This  type  of  fallacy  is  one  in 
which  a  conclusion  to  be  proved  is  used  to  prove  itself  by 
being  repeated  in  the  form  of  a  more  inclusive  general  state- 
ment. 

The  following  argument,  for  example,  contains  the  fallacy 
of  iteration  by  generalization  : 


Fallacy  109 

I.   The  Panama  Canal  should  be  placed  under  international 
control;  for 

A.  All  such  canals  should  be  placed  under  international 
control. 

This  type  of  fallacious  argument  closely  resembles  per- 
fectly valid  reasoning  from  generalization ;  and  yet  it  dif- 
fers from  valid  reasoning  in  the  fact  that  it  introduces  into 
its  premise  no  new  term  that  might  serve  as  a  middle  term 
in  a  full  syllogism. 

To  constitute  valid  argument  from  generalization,  some 
new  term  would  have  to  be  introduced  into  the  premise,  as 
in  the  following  argument : 

I.   The  Panama  Canal  should  be  placed  under  international 
control ;  for 

A.  All  straits  and  canals  that  serve  as  necessary  high- 
ways of  the  world's  commerce  should  be  placed 
under  international  control. 

The  Fallacy  of  Argument  in  a  Circle.  —  The  third  form  of 
begging  the  question  consists  of  argument  in  a  circle.  This 
type  of  fallacy  is  one  in  which  a  given  proposition  is  em- 
ployed first  as  a  conclusion  derived  from  another  proposi- 
tion and  then  as  a  premise  to  support  this  same  proposi- 
tion. The  difference  between  this  fallacy  and  the  fallacy 
of  simple  iteration  is  that  in  argument  in  a  circle  one  or  more 
premises  are  inserted  between  the  two  statements  of  the 
same  proposition. 

An  illustration  of  this  type  of  fallacy  is  found  in  the  fol- 
lowing arguments:  A  certain  person  was  the  instigator  of 
a  crime,  because  he  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  crime; 
and  it  was  he  who  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  crime,  be- 
cause he  was  the  instigator  of  the  crime, 


110  Elements  of  Proof 

If  these  arguments  were  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  chain 
of  reasoning,  they  would  appear  as  follows : 
I.   A  certain  person  was  the  instigator  of  a  crime ;  for 
A.   He  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  crime ;  for 
1.   He  was  the  instigator  of  the  crime. 

The  Fallacy  of  Non-Evident  Premise.  — The-  fourth  form 
of  begging  the  question  is  found  in  the  fallacy  of  non-evident 
premise.  This  type  of  fallacy  is  one  in  which  a  premise  re- 
quiring proof  is  assumed  to  be  true  without  proof.  Such  a 
fallacy  is  an  instance  of  begging  the  question,  because  it 
assumes  in  a  premise  the  truth  of  a  proposition  that  is  really 
a  conclusion  to  be  proved.  This  fallacy  appears  whenever 
alleged  evidence  cannot  meet  the  tests  of  evidence  that  have 
been  previously  enumerated.1 

An  illustration  of  this  type  of  fallacy  appears  in  the  fol- 
lowing proof : 

I.   Life    imprisonment   should    be   substituted    for   capital 
punishment  in  cases  of  premeditated  murder ;  for 
A.   Life    imprisonment    would    be   a   greater    deterrent 
against  premeditated    murder  than    capital    punish- 
ment; for 

1.   The  prospective  murderer  would  have  greater  fear 
of  life  imprisonment  as  a  penalty  than  of  capi- 
tal punishment.       ' 
This  proof  contains  the  fallacy  of  non-evident  premise, 
because  it  rests  upon  a  premise  that  cannot  be  assumed  to 
be  true  without  proof. 

II.   Non-Sequitur 

Fallacies  of  Non-Sequitur.  —  The  second  main  class  of 
material  fallacies  consists  of  fallacies  that  may  be  referred 


See  pages  61-62. 


Fallacy  111 

to  under  the  general  name  of  fallacies  of  non-sequitur,  which 
means  when  translated,  it  does  not  follow.  Fallacies  of  this 
type  are  those  that  arise  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  valid 
connection  between  the  assumed  or  known  truth  in  the 
premise  and  the  alleged  truth  in  the  conclusion. 

To  give  a  special  name  to  all  the  different  fallacies  of  non- 
sequitur  would  be  impossible;  but  some  of  the  more  com- 
mon varieties  are : 

1.  The  Fallacy  of  Post  Hoc; 

2.  The  Fallacies  of  Composition  and  Division ; 

3.  The  Fallacy  of  Accident ;  and 

4.  The  Fallacy  of  Equivocation. 

The  Fallacy  of  Post  Hoc.  —  The  first  common  variety  of 
non-sequitur  to  be  considered  is  known  as  the  fallacy  of  "post 
hoc.  This  fallacy  derives  its  name  from  the  Latin  phrase, 
post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc,  which  means  after  this,  therefore  on 
account  of  this.  A  fallacy  of  this  type  arises  from  the  false 
assumption  that  a  mere  sequence  between  two  things  is 
sufficient  to  establish  a  causal  relationship  between  them. 

An  illustration  of  this  fallacy  appears  in  the  following 
argument : 

I.   The  heavy  rainfall  in  America  during  the  World  War  was 
due  to  the  heavy  cannonading  in  Europe ;  for 
A.  The  heavy  rainfall  in  America  followed  the  heavy 
cannonading  in  Europe. 

To  avoid  this  fallacy,  a  debater  should  proceed  to  estab- 
lish causal  relationships  on  the  more  valid  assumptions  that 
two  things  are  causally  related  : 

1.  When  they  appear  invariably  in  the  same  sequence; 
and 


112  Elements  of  Proof 

2.  When  no  other  sequence  appears  invariably  to  explain 

the  same  fact ;  and 

3.  When  any  variation  in  one  of  the  things  is  always 

accompanied  by  a  corresponding  variation  in  the 
other. 

The  Fallacies  of  Composition  and  Division.  —  The  second 
common  variety  of  non-sequitur  may  be  known  either  as 
the  fallacy  of  composition  or  as  the  fallacy  of  division.  These 
two  fallacies  are  considered  together,  because  one  is  the  con- 
verse of  the  other.  The  fallacy  of  composition  arises  from 
the  false  assumption  that  what  is  true  of  a  part  is  also  neces- 
sarily true  of  the  whole ;  and  the  fallacy  of  division  arises 
from  the  false  assumption  that  what  is  true  of  the  whole  is 
also  necessarily  true  of  a  part. 

Illustrations  of  these  two  fallacies  are  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing arguments : 

Composition 

I.  The  United  States  could  defend  itself  in  war  against  all 
the  rest  of  the  world ;  for 

A.  The  United  States  could  defend  itself. in  war  against 
any  other  nation  in  the  world. 

Division 

I.   The  soldiers  of  Mexico  during  the  civil  wars  were  poor 
soldiers;  for 

A.   The  armies  of  Mexico  during  the  civil  wars  were 
poor  armies. 

The  fallacy  of  composition  is  always  associated  with  argu- 
ment by  induction;  and  the  fallacy  of  division  is  always 
associated  with  argument  by  deduction ;   but  both  of  these 


Fallacy  113 

fallacies  result  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  basic  theories 
involved  in  these  two  types  of  reasoning. 

Argument  by  induction,  for  example,  is  based  on  the  theory 
that  what  is  true  of  some,  individually,  is  true  of  all,  indi- 
vidually ;  whereas,  argument  involving  the  fallacy  of  composi- 
tion is  based  on  the  theory  that  what  is  true  of  some,  individ- 
ually, is  true  of  the  whole  or  all,  collectively. 

In  the  same  way,  argument  by  deduction  is  based  on  the 
theory  that  what  is  true  of  all,  individually,  is  true  of  any, 
individually;  and  argument  involving  the  fallacy  of  division 
is  based  on  the  theory  that  what  is  true  of  the  whole  or  all, 
collectively,  is  true  of  any,  individually. 

To  avoid  either  one  of  these  fallacies,  therefore,  the  debater 
needs  only  to  avoid  confusion  between  them  and  valid  rea- 
soning by  induction  or  by  deduction.1 

The  Fallacy  of  Accident.  —  The  third  common  variety  of 
non-sequitur  is  known  as  the  fallacy  of  accident.  This  type 
of  fallacy  is  one  that  arises  from  the  false  assumption  that 
what  is  true  in  a  peculiar  instance  is  also  true  in  an  ordinary 
instance,  or  what  is  true  in  an  ordinary  instance  is  also  true 
in  a  peculiar  instance. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  appears  in  the  following  argu- 
ment : 

I.   Every  public  executioner  is  nothing  but  a  murderer ;  for 
A.   Any  man  who  takes  the  life  of  another  in  cold  blood 
is  a  murderer. 

This  argument  contains  the  fallacy  of  accident,  because 
it  assumes  that  what  is  true  in  an  ordinary  instance  is  also 
true  in  a  peculiar  instance. 

To  avoid  this  fallacy,  a  debater  should  test  every  argu- 
ment from  generalization  2  to  see  whether  the  general  law  or 

1  See  pages  74-75. 

2  See  pages  84-85. 


114  Elements  of  Proof 

principle  applies  to  the  particular  instance  in  the  conclu- 
sion. He  should  test  every  argument  by  induction  to  see 
whether  the  given  instances  are  typical.1  And  he  should 
test  every  argument  by  analogy  to  see  whether  there  is  any 
essential  difference  between  the  two  instances.2 

The  Fallacy  of  Equivocation.  —  The  fourth  common  va- 
riety of  non-sequitur  is  known  as  the  fallacy  of  equivocation. 
This  fallacy  is  one  that  arises  from  the  false  assumption  that 
what  is  true  of  a  term  employed  in  one  sense  is  also  true  of 
the  same  term  employed  in  an  entirely  different  sense. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  the  following  argu- 
ment: 

I.   The  State  of  New  York  has  the  right  to  grant  patents ;  for 
A.   The  right  to  grant  patents  is  a  prerogative  of  the  state. 

This  argument  contains  the  fallacy  of  equivocation,  be- 
cause it  employs  the  term  state  in  two  different  senses :  one 
denoting  a  component  part  of  the  United  States;  and  the 
other  denoting  the  abstract  sovereign  power  of  a  whole  na- 
tion. 

To  avoid  this  fallacy,  the  debater  should  always  examine 
any  term  that  is  used  twice  in  an  argument  to  see  whether 
it  is  employed  with  a  double  meaning  according  to  a  dif- 
ference between  its  original  usage  and  its  modern  usage; 
its  general  usage  and  its  specific  usage;  its  common  usage 
and  its  technical  usage;  its  figurative  usage  and  its  literal 
usage. 

III.  Argument  Beside  the  Point 

Fallacies  of  Argument  Beside  the  Point.  —  The  third  and 
last  main  division  of  material  fallacies  consists  in  argument 

1  See  pages  92-94. 

2  See  pages  97,  98-99. 


Fallacy  115 

beside  the  point.  This  general  type  of  fallacy  has  many  dif- 
ferent names;  such  as,  the  fallacy  of  irrelevant  conclusion, 
ignoring  the  question,  evading  the  issue,  and  setting  up  straw 
men;  but  under  any  one  of  these  names  its  general  nature 
is  essentially  the  same. 

Argument  beside  the  point  is  a  fallacy  that  occurs  when- 
ever proof  is  advanced  in  support  of  a  conclusion  that  has 
no  valid  connection  with  the  proposition  to  be  proved.  All 
such  proof  is  said  to  be  beside  the  point. 

This  fallacy  is,  from  one  point  of  view,  simply  another 
form  of  the  general  fallacy  of  non-sequitur ;  because  it  never 
occurs  except  in  conjunction  with  a  fallacy  of  non-sequitur. 

The  relation  between  a  fallacy  of  argument  beside  the 
point  and  a  fallacy  of  non-sequitur  may  be  made  plain  by 
the  following  skeleton  outline  of  a  chain  of  reasoning : 

I ;     for 

(Non-Sequitur) 

Beside       A ;     for 

the  " ;     for 

Point     [  (a) 

In  this  skeleton  outline  each  two  successive  lines  may 
represent  an  argument.  There  is  a  fallacy  of  non-sequitur 
as  indicated  between  roman  I  and  A ;  and  because  this 
fallacy  of  non-sequitur  occurs  at  this  place,  all  proof  in  sup- 
port of  point  A  in  the  chain  of  reasoning  is  said  to  be 
beside  the  point;  i.  e.,  it  is  aside  from  the  real  point  or 
points  that  should  be  used  to  prove  roman  I. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  give  a  special  name  to  all  the 
different  kinds  of  argument  beside  the  point,  just  as  it  was 
impossible  to  do  this  for  all  the  different  kinds  of  non- 
sequitur;  but  some  of  the  more  common  varieties  of  argu- 
ment beside  the  point  are  : 


116  Elements  of  Proof 

1.  Argumentum  ad  Hominem; 

2.  Argumentum  ad  Populum; 

3.  Argumentum  ad  Ignoraniiam;  and 

4.  Argumentum  ad  Verecundiam. 

The  Fallacy  of  Argumentum  ad  Hominem.  —  The  first 
common  variety  of  argument  beside  the  point  is  argumen- 
tum ad  hominem,  which  means  argument  to  the  man.  This 
type  of  fallacy  is  one  that  occurs  whenever  proof  points, 
not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition  to  be  proved, 
but  merely  to  the  fact  that  some  man  associated  with  the 
proposition  has,  or  has  not,  some  fault. 

The  false  assumptions  that  give  rise  to  this  fallacy  are : 
that  no  true  proposition  is  in  any  way  associated  with  a  man 
having  faults ;  and  no  false  proposition  is  in  any  way  asso- 
ciated with  a  man  who  appears  to  be  faultless. 

The  most  common  form  of  this  fallacy  is  one  in  which 
proof  is  offered  merely  to  discredit  an  opponent  by  an  attack 
on  his  character  and  motives,  or  by  an  exposure  of  some 
flaw  in  his  record. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  a  recent  contro- 
versy concerning  whether  Congress  should  enact  a  protec- 
tive tariff  measure  advocated  by  Republicans.  In  this 
controversy,  certain  Republicans  sought  to  defend  the  pro- 
posed measure  by  means  of  the  following  argument : 

I.   The  Democrats  have  no  right  to  attack  a  Republican 
protective  tariff  measure  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
increase  the  cost  of  living,  for 
A.   Under  a  recent  Democratic  administration  the  living 

cost  was  higher  than  at  any  other  time  during  the 

history  of  the  country. 

This  proof  contains  the  fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  homi- 
nem; because  it  points,  not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 


Fallacy  117 

proposition  that  a  protective  tariff  should  be  enacted,  but 
merely  to  the  fact  that  the  Democratic  opponents  of  this 
measure  were  not  faultless,  as  shown  by  flaws  in  their  record. 

The  Fallacy  of  Argumentum  ad  Populum.  —  The  second 
common  variety  of  argument  beside  the  point  is  argumentum 
ad  populum,  which  means  argument  to  the  people.  This  type 
of  fallacy  is  one  that  occurs  whenever  proof  points,  not  to 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition  to  be  proved,  but 
merely  to  the  fact  that  the  people  are  for  the  proposition  or 
against  it. 

The  false  assumptions  that  give  rise  to  this  fallacy  are : 
that  no  proposition  is  false,  if  the  people  are  for  it;  and  no 
proposition  is  true,  if  the  people  are  against  it. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  the  old  controversy 
concerning  the  truth  of  Darwin's  theory  of  evolution.  The 
opponents  of  this  theory  have  often  sought  to  destroy  it  by 
means  of  the  following  argument : 

I.   The  great  majority  of  people  will  never  admit  that  their 
ancestors  were  apes ;  for 

A.   By  admitting  this  fact,  they  would  lower  themselves 
to  the  level  of  brutes. 

This  proof  contains  the  fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  popu- 
lum; because  it  points,  not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Dar- 
win's theory,  but  merely  to  the  fact  that  a  great  number  of 
people  are  against  it. 

The  Fallacy  of  Argumentum  ad  Ignorantiam.  —  The  third 
common  variety  of  argument  beside  the  point  is  argumen- 
tum ad  ignorantiam,  which  means  argument  to  ignorance. 
This  type  of  fallacy  is  one  that  occurs  whenever  proof  points, 
not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition  to  be  proved, 
but  merely  to  the  fact  that  there  is  ignorance  among  people 
concerning  it. 


118  Elements  of  Proof 

The  false  assumptions  that  give  rise  to  this  fallacy  are: 
that  whenever  any  person  lacks  information  to  prove  a  prop- 
osition, the  proposition  is  false;  or  whenever  any  person 
lacks  information  to  disprove  a  proposition,  the  proposition 
is  true. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  an  anecdote  concern- 
ing a  boy  in  a  geometry  class  who  had  not  studied  his  les- 
son and  who  was  asked  to  prove  that  a  given  line  was  straight. 
The  boy,  not  knowing  what  else  to  say,  offered  the  following 
proof : 

I.  This  line  is  a  straight  line ;  because 

A.  No  one  in  this  class  can  prove  that  it  is  crooked. 

This  proof  contains  the  fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  igno- 
rantiam  because  it  points,  not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
proposition  that  the  line  was  straight,  but  merely  to  the 
fact  that  certain  persons  lacked  information  to  disprove 
that  it  was  straight. 

The   Fallacy   of   Argumentum   ad    Verecundiam.  —  The 

fourth  common  variety  of  argument  beside  the  point  is 
argumentum  ad  verecundiam,  which  means  argument  to  that 
which  inspires  reverence.  This  type  of  fallacy  is  one  that 
occurs  whenever  proof  points,  not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  proposition  to  be  proved,  but  merely  to  the  fact  that 
the  proposition  is  supported  by  authority  that  inspires  rev- 
erence or  respect. 

The  false  assumption  that  gives  rise  to  this  fallacy  is : 
that  whenever  a  proposition  is  supported  by  authority  that 
inspires  reverence  or  respect,  then  the  proposition  must  be 
true. 

This  fallacy  occurs  most  frequently  in  arguments  that 
appeal  merely  to  reverence  for  the  authority  of   old   age, 


Fallacy  119 

exalted  position,  ancient  custom  and  tradition,  sacred  literature, 
and  established  institutions. 

An  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  the  old  controversy 
concerning  whether  or  not  the  institution  of  human  slavery 
was  justifiable.  In  this  controversy,  those  who  defended 
slavery  often  advanced  the  following  proof : 

I.   The  institution  of  human  slavery  has  existed  since  the 
very  beginning  of  time ;  for 

A.  Slavery  existed  among  the  ancient  Egyptians; 

B.  It  existed  among  the  ancient  Hebrews ; 

C.  It  existed  in  ancient  Greece ; 

D.  It  existed  in  ancient  Rome ; 

E.  It  existed  in  the  Middle  Ages ;  and 

F.  It  has  continued  down  to  the  present. 

This  proof  contains  the  fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  verecun- 
diam;  because  it  points,  not  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
proposition  that  slavery  is  justifiable,  but  merely  to  the  fact 
that  slavery  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  ancient  cus- 
tom, which  is  supposed  to  inspire  reverence  or  respect. 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Fallacy.  —  The  treatment  of 
fallacy  as  presented  in  this  chapter  does  not  pretend  to  be 
exhaustive ;  for  certain  large  groups  of  fallacy,  as  the  subject 
is  treated  in  logic,  have  been  omitted.  Those  fallacies,  how- 
ever, about  which  every  debater  should  have  some  knowl- 
edge have  been  thoroughly  explained.  If  the  debater  un- 
derstands the  two  different  methods  of  detecting  fallacy 
and  is  familiar  wij:h  all  the  common  forms  of  begging  the 
question,  non-sequitur,  and  argument  beside  the  point,  then 
he  should  be  able,  not  only  to  avoid  fallacy  in  his  own  proof, 
but  also  to  detect  and  expose  it  in  the  proof  of  his  opponent. 


CHAPTER   IV 

REFUTATION1 

Constructive  Proof  and  Refutation.  —  Proof  in  debate  is 
employed  to  accomplish  two  very  distinct  purposes:  First, 
to  create  belief  in  one  side  of  a  proposition ;  and  second,  to 
destroy  belief  in  whatever  tends  to  establish  the  opposite 
side  of  the  proposition.  When  proof  is  employed  to  create 
belief,  it  is  called  constructive  proof;  and  when  it  is  employed 
to  destroy  belief,  it  is  called  destructive  proof,  or  refutation. 

Importance  of  Refutation  in  Debate.  —  Without  refuta- 
tion, debate  is  impossible;  for  debate  is  essentially  an  art 
of  controversy;  and,  as  such,  demands  a  conflict  between 
those  who  represent  one  side  of  a  proposition  and  those  who 
represent  the  other.  This  conflict  can  be  carried  on,  how- 
ever, only  as  the  constructive  proof  advanced  on  one  side 
is  met  by  destructive  proof  advanced  on  the  other.  Refu- 
tation, therefore,  as  an  element  of  proof,  constitutes  one  of 
the  most  essential  processes  in  the  art  of  debate. 

Definition  of  Refutation.  —  Refutation  is  a  form  of  proof 
that  may  be  known  as  disproof.  In  other  words,  it  consists 
of  proof  employed  to  meet  and  overthrow  opposing  proof. 

Refutation  Applied  either  to  Arguments  or  to  Statements. 
—  The  term  refutation  is  applied  either  to  the  process  of 
disproving  arguments  or  to  the  process  of  disproving  state- 
ments ;   but  in  either  case  it  represents  essentially  the  same 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Refutation,  see  Appendix  A. 
120 


Refutation  121 

process ;  for,  when  an  argument  is  refuted,  a  single  instance 
of  proof  is  met  and  overthrown ;  and,  when  a  statement  is 
refuted,  all  proof  that  might  be  advanced  in  its  support  is 
met  and  overthrown. 

Refutation  a  Form  of  Argument  by  Deduction.  —  Refu- 
tation is  often  thought  to  involve  an  entirely  different  kind 
of  reasoning  from  that  employed  in  other  proof;  but  in 
reality,  it  consists  always  of  argument  by  deduction,1  some- 
times in  the  form  of  a  full  syllogism,2  and  sometimes  in  the 
form  of  an  enthymeme.3 

The  structure  of  an  argument  given  in  refutation  is  shown 
by  the  following  illustration  : 

I.  The  argument  that :  The  power  of  the  United  States 
Senate  to  veto  legislation  passed  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives should  be  limited  because  the  power  of 
the  English  House  of  Lords  to  veto  legislation  passed 
by  the  House  of  Commons  has  been  limited,  —  is  fal- 
lacious;  for 

A.  There  is  no  essential  similarity  between  the  United 
States  Senate  and  the  English  House  of  Lords; 
and 

B.  Unless  there  is  an  essential  similarity  between  these 
two  instances,  no  valid  inference  can  be  made  from 
one  to  the  other. 

This  example  of  refutation  takes  the  form  of  a  full  syllo- 
gism ;  but  either  of  its  premises  might  be  omitted,  and  then 
it  would  take  the  form  of  an  enthymeme. 

The  major  premise  in  refutation  always  refers  to  some 
general  law  or  principle  that  must  either  be  followed    or 

1  See  pages  74-75. 

2  See  page  77. 

3  See  pages  83-84. 


122  Elements  of  Proof 

avoided  in  valid  reasoning;  and  the  minor  premise  always 
points  out  the  way  in  which  opposing  proof  violates  some 
general  law  or  principle  of  valid  reasoning. 

Problems  of  Refutation.  —  The  chief  problems  confront- 
ing a  debater  in  the  study  of  refutation,  are  to  understand : 

1.  What  to  refute ; 

2.  When  to  refute ; 

3.  Where  to  refute ;  and 

4.  How  to  refute. 

These  problems  will  be  considered  one  at  a  time  in  the  order 
given  above. 

What  to  Refute.  —  No  mistake  is  more  common  among 
debaters  than  to  attempt  to  refute  every  argument  and  every 
statement  made  by  an  opponent.  Such  an  effort  is  a  great 
strain  on  a  debater,  and  is,  of  course,  foredoomed  to  fail- 
ure, because  no  opponent  worth  arguing  with  is  always 
wrong  in  whatever  he  may  think  or  say. 

A  debater,  therefore,  should  choose  with  great  care  those 
points  made  by  his  opponent  that  are  worthy  of  refutation. 
These  points  will  usually  be  the  points  that  make  the  most 
impression  on  the  hearers,  and  the  points  which  convey  the 
gist  of  an  opponent's  proof.      t , 

A  debater  should  never  waste  his  time  or  his  energy  on 
points  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  case  or  on  points 
that  may  be  admitted  without  injury.  Such  points  he 
should  immediately  exclude  from  consideration,  and  then 
he  should  proceed  to  refute  only  those  more  important 
points  that  seriously  threaten  his  view  of  the  case. 

When  to  Refute.  —  Another  common  mistake  among 
debaters  is  to  attempt  to  refute  the  constructive  proof  in 
an  opponent's  case  before  this  proof  is  presented.     This 


Refutation  123 

practice,  of  course,  is  always  dangerous,  because  it  is  seldom 
possible  to  forecast  with  absolute  accuracy  what  an  oppo- 
nent will  say;  and  when  an  opponent  finds  that  his  argu- 
ments are  already  refuted,  he  will  in  most  cases  deny  that 
he  ever  intended  to  use  such  arguments  and  then  proceed 
to  advance  others  in  their  stead.  The  only  safe  rule  to  fol- 
low, therefore,  is  to  postpone  refutation  until  constructive 
proof  has  been  advanced  that  actually  demands  refuta- 
tion. 

Where  to  Refute.  —  The  third  problem  confronting  the 
debater  in  refutation  is  to  determine  at  what  point  in  his 
speech  he  should  undertake  it.  Should  it  come  before,  along 
with,  or  after  his  constructive  proof?  The  answer  to  this 
question  will  vary  according  to  circumstances,  but  will  fol- 
low, nevertheless,  certain  very  definite  rules. 

If  the  refutation  is  given  in  answer  to  proof  that  has  just 
been  presented  by  an  opponent,  then  it  should  be  grouped 
at  the  beginning  of  the  speech  before  any  constructive  proof 
is  attempted. 

If  the  refutation  is  given  in  answer  to  proof  that  occurs 
merely  as  a  possible  objection  or  as  upholding  a  possible 
alternative  proposition,  then  it  may  be  scattered  in  with  the 
constructive  proof  or  grouped  after  it  in  the  body  of  the 
speech. 

Refutation  should  never  be  given  the  last  place  in  a 
speech,  however ;  for  the  debater's  object  should  be  to  leave 
a  lasting  impression  by  his  final  remarks  that  he  has  estab- 
lished the  truth  of  his  position  rather  than  merely  destroyed 
whatever  tends  to  establish  the  opposite  truth.  Refuta- 
tion, therefore,  should  always  be  followed  either  by  construc- 
tive proof,  or,  at  least,  by  a  summary  of  constructive  proof 
that  has  been  previously  advanced. 


124  Elements  of  Proof 

How  to  Refute. — The  chief  problem  confronting  a  de- 
bater in  respect  to  refutation  is  not,  however,  what  to  refute, 
nor  when  to  refute,  nor  where  to  refute,  but  is  rather  how 
to  refute. 

This  problem  may  be  met  first  by  pointing  out  how  refu- 
tation should  be  stated  in  contrast  with  constructive  proof; 
second,  by  showing  the  various  openings  for  attack  in  refu- 
tation; and  third,  by  explaining  all  the  different  methods 
of  refutation  commonly  employed  in  debate. 

The  Statement  of  Refutation.  —  One  of  the  first  things 
that  a  debater  should  learn  about  refutation  is  the  difference 
between  the  way  in  which  it  must  be  stated  and  the  way  in 
which  constructive  proof  is  stated ;  for  otherwise  refuta- 
tion may  be  confused  with  constructive  proof  and  much  of 
its  force  will  be  lost  because  its  bearing  on  the  proposition 
will  be  hard  to  see. 

Refutation  should  always  differ  in  statement  from  con- 
structive proof  by  setting  forth  clearly  at  the  outset  certain 
proof  that  is  to  be  met  and  overthrown.  This  means,  there- 
fore, that  when  refutation  is  expressed  in  brief  form,  a  full 
statement  of  the  proof  to  be  refuted  must  be  given  in  the 
conclusion. 

Various  examples  of  the  proper  method  for  stating  refuta- 
tion will  be  found  within  the  present  chapter. 

Openings  for  Attack  in  Refutation.  —  If  the  debater  is 
to  acquire  any  degree  of  proficiency  in  refutation,  he  must 
be  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  the  available  openings  for 
attack  against  an  opponent's  proof.     These  openings  are : 

1.  Mere  Assertion; 

2.  Unreliable  Evidence ;  and 

3.  Weak  Argument. 


Refutation  125 

Four  Methods  of  Refutation.  —  The  four  principal  meth- 
ods of  refutation  commonly  employed  in  debate  are : 

1.  Refutation  by  the  Tests  of  Evidence ; 1 

2.  Refutation  by  the  Tests  of  Argument ;  2 

3.  Refutation  by  the  Exposure  of  Definite  Falla- 
cies ; 3  and 

4.  Refutation  by  Means  of  Special  Devices. 

Of  these  four  methods,  the  first  may  be  used  to  overthrow 
mere  assertion  and  unreliable  evidence ;  and  the  second  and 
third  may  be  used  to  overthrow  weak  argument. 

Only  the  fourth  method  will  be  given  consideration  in 
detail  at  this  point,  because  the  other  three  have  already 
been  considered  at  length  in  the  preceding  chapters  on  Evi- 
dence, Argument,  and  Fallacy. 

Refutation  by  Special  Devices.  —  Special  devices  com- 
monly employed  in  refutation  are  : 

1 .  Turning  the  Tables  ; 

2.  Reductio  ad  Absurdum; 

3.  The  Method  of  Residues ;  and 

4.  The  Dilemma. 

Turning  the  Tables.  —  Turning  the  tables  is  a  form  of 
refutation  in  which  an  opponent's  proof  is  overthrown  by 
accepting  one  of  his  premises  and  from  it  establishing  the 
opposite  conclusion. 

An  illustration  of  this  method  of  refutation  is  found  in 
the  following  argument  taken  from  a  daily  newspaper : 

I.   The  argument  that :  —  A  high  protective  tariff  should  be 
levied  on  lumber,  since  the  lumber   industry  needs   to 

1  See  pages  61-62. 

2  See  pages  101-103. 

3  See  page  107, 


126  Elements  of  Proof 

be  encouraged,  because  the  lumber  supply  is  becoming 

scarce,  —  is  unsound ;  for 

A.   The  very  fact  that  the  lumber   supply  is   becoming 

scarce  is  a  reason  for  not  levying  a  high  protective 

tariff  on  lumber ;  for 

1.  A  high  protective  tariff  would  result  in  still 
further  depleting  our  native  lumber  supply; 
and 

2.  With  a  still  further  depleted  lumber  supply,  re- 

sulting in  still  higher  prices  for  lumber,  a  com- 
plete collapse  in  much  needed  building  projects 
may  be  expected. 

Turning  the  tables  by  accepting  an  opponent's  premise 
and  reversing  his  conclusion  is  a  method  of  refutation  that 
is  especially  adapted  to  the  overthrow  of  arguments  from 
antecedent  probability  and  arguments  from  sign ; *  for,  to 
refute  such  arguments,  a  debater  needs  only  to  show  that 
an  opposite  effect  follows  from  an  alleged  cause ;  or  that  an 
opposite  cause  is  the  source  of  an  alleged  effect. 

This  method  of  refutation  may  be  applied  as  easily,  how- 
ever, to  the  overthrow  of  an  attack  upon  an  argument  by 
analogy ; 2  when  this  attack  is  based  on  a  difference  between 
the  given  instances  that  merely  accentuates  the  real  cause 
for  the  truth  of  the  original  conclusion. 

An  instance  of  turning  the  tables  in  such  a  case  is  found 
in  the  following  proof : 

I.  The  argument  that: — Kings  should  not  be  expected  to 
observe  the  common  laws  of  morality  that  are  imposed 
on  other  people,  because  kings  occupy  a  higher  station 
in  society,  —  is  unsound ;  for 

1  See  pages  86-88,  90,  91. 

2  See  pages  74-75,  98-99. 


Refutation  127 

A.  The  very  point  of  difference,  that  kings  do  occupy 
a  higher  station  in  society,  should  cause  them,  even 
more  than  other  people,  to  observe  the  common 
laws  of  morality. 

Reductio  ad  Absurdum.  — The  second  special  device  com- 
monly employed  in  refutation  is  called  reductio  ad  absur- 
dum, which  means  reduction  to  an  absurdity.  This  method 
of  refutation  is  one  in  which  an  opponent's  argument  is 
destroyed  by  exposing  the  absurdity  of  the  general  assump- 
tion on  which  it  is  based. 

Refutation  by  this  method  may  be  accomplished  in  some 
instances  merely  by  stating  the  general  assumption  on  which 
the  opposing  proof  is  based;  and,  because  this  assumption 
is  so  obviously  absurd,  the  argument  derived  from  it  will 
appear  absurd  also. 

An  instance  of  this  kind  is  found  in  the  following  refuta- 
tion : 

I.   The  argument  that :  — Aaron  Burr  should  never  have 
turned  out  to  be  a  political  renegade,  because   he  was 
a  grandson   of  the  eminent    Puritan    divine,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  —  is  absurd ;  for 
A.  This  argument  is  based  on  the  absurd  theory  that 

by  the  laws  of  heredity  no  grandchild  of  an  eminent 

clergyman  should  ever  turn  out  bad. 

In  this  instance  of  refutation,  it  will  be  noted  that  the 
debater  has  merely  supplied  in  his  opponent's  argument  the 
implied  and  absurd  major  premise  that  must  have  served 
as  the  general  assumption  on  which  his  opponent's  argument 
was  based.  Because  the  absurdity  of  the  implied  major 
premise  is  exposed,  the  whole  argument  is  reduced  to  an 
absurdity. 


128  Elements  of  Proof 

In  most  instances,  however,  reductio  ad  absurdum  de- 
mands of  the  debater  that  he  discover  the  underlying  gen- 
eral assumption  in  his  opponent's  proof  and  then  apply 
this  assumption  to  other  instances  that  are  obviously 
absurd. 

This  form  of  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  found  in  the  fol- 
lowing refutation  employed  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  his 
famous  Liverpool  Speech: l 

I.  The  argument  that :  —  The  sympathies  of  England 
should  be  extended  to  the  South  in  the  Civil  War,  be- 
cause the  people  of  the  South  were  members  of  a 
minority,  —  is  absurd ;  for 

A.  This  argument  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  our 
sympathies  should  always  be  extended  to  those  who 
are  in  a  minority ;  and 

B.  If  this  assumption  were  carried  out  in  all  instances, 
it  would  lead  us  to  bestow  our  sympathies  on  thieves 
when  they  are  taken  into  the  custody  of  the  law; 
for 

1.   Surely  a  thief  when  taken  into  custody  is  a  mem- 
ber of  a  minority. 

To  acquire  facility  in  the  use  of  reductio  ad  absurdum, 
the  debater  should  be  constantly  on  the  alert  to  discover 
arguments  of  his  opponent  that  are  based  on  the  false,  but 
common,  general  assumptions : 

That  a  mere  sequence  between  two  things  is  sufficient 
to  establish  a  causal  relationship  between  them ; 

That  what  is  true  of  a  part  is  also  necessarily  true  of  a 
whole,  and  vice  versa; 

*See  Johnston  and  Woodburn:  American  Orations,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 
110-111. 


Refutation  129 

That  what  is  true  in  a  peculiar  instance  is  also  true  in  an 
ordinary  instance  and  vice  versa; 

That  what  is  true  of  a  term  employed  in  one  sense  is 
also  true  of  the  same  term  employed  in  an  entirely  different 
sense ; 

That  no  true  proposition  is  in  any  way  associated  with  a 
man  having  faults ;  and  no  false  proposition  is  in  any  way 
associated  with  a  man  who  appears  to  be  faultless ; 

That  no  proposition  is  false,  if  the  people  are  for  it ;  and 
no  proposition  is  true,  if  the  people  are  against  it ; 

That  when  any  person  lacks  information  to  prove  a  prop- 
osition, the  proposition  is  false ;  and  whenever  any  person 
lacks  information  to  disprove  a  proposition,  the  proposition 
is  true ;  —  and 

That  whenever  a  proposition  is  supported  by  authority 
that  inspires  reverence  or  respect,  then  the  proposition  must 
be  true. * 

The  one  caution  that  must  be  observed  in  all  attempts  to 
employ  the  method  of  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  that  the  de- 
bater should  always  demonstrate  the  absurdity  of  his  oppo- 
nent's proof,  and  never  be  content  merely  to  brand  it  as 
absurd. 

The  Method  of  Residues.  —  The  third  special  device 
commonly  employed  in  refutation  is  known  as  the  method 
of  residues.  This  device  differs  from  all  other  methods  of 
refutation  in  the  fact  that  it  makes  destructive  proof  serve 
the  purpose  of  constructive  proof. 

The  method  of  residues  is  a  device  that  enables  one  to 
establish  a  given  proposition  by  overthrowing  all  alternative 
pro-positions  that  might  be  substituted  for  it. 

^ee  Fallacies  of  Non-Sequitur  and  Argument  Beside  the  Point, 
pages  110-119. 


130  Elements  of  Proof 

One  of  the  best  examples  of  the  use  of  this  device  is  found 
in  Edmund  Burke's  speech  on  Conciliation  with  the  Colonies.1 
In  this  speech,  Burke  maintained  that : 
I.    In  order  to  establish  peace,  England  must  comply  with 
the  stubborn  spirit  that  prevails  in  the  colonies;    for 

A.  Only  three  ways  of  dealing  with  the  colonies  exist : 
namely,  to  change  their  spirit  as  inconvenient  by 
removing  the  causes;  to  prosecute  it  as  criminal; 
or  to  comply  with  it  as  necessary ;  and 

B.  Only  the  last  way  lies  open ;  for 

1.  To   remove  the  cause  of  this   spirit  is   impracti- 
cable; and 

2.  To  prosecute  this  spirit  is  both  impracticable  and 
inexpedient. 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  this  method  of  refutation 
involves  the  use  merely  of  a  disjunctive  syllogism ; 2  and, 
hence,  the  same  rules  must  be  applied  to  the  method  of  res- 
idues that  are  applied  to  this  form  of  syllogism.  Chief 
among  these  rules  are  the  requirements  that : 

1 .  The  alternative  propositions  must  be  exhaustive ;  and 

2.  They  must  also  be  mutually  exclusive. 

This  method  of  refutation  should  be  employed  only  when 
the  alternative  propositions  are  few  in  number;  when  they 
may  be  quickly  disposed  of;  and  when  the  refutation  is 
absolutely  conclusive. 

The  Dilemma.  —  The  fourth  and  last  special  device  em- 
ployed in  refutation  is  called  the  dilemma.  This  device  is 
one  in  which  two  theories  of  proof  are  presented  to  an  oppo- 
nent, one  of  which  he  must  accept,  and  either  one  of  which 
will  destroy  his  contention. 

1  See  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  27-35. 

2  See  pages  81-82. 


Refutation  131 

The  dilemma  means  literally  two  horns;  and  consists, 
therefore,  of  an  argument  that  presents  to  an  opponent  two 
theories  of  proof  resembling  horns,  both  of  which  threaten 
him,  and  on  one  of  which  he  must  be  gored. 

This  method  of  proof  was  discovered  by  the  earliest  rhet- 
oricians and  ever  since  their  time  has  been  considered  one 
of  the  cleverest  devices  employed  in  debate. 

The  Constructive  Dilemma.  —  The  dilemma  may  be  used 
either  as  a  method  of  constructive  proof  or  as  a  method  of 
destructive  proof. 

The  constructive  dilemma  is  one  that  involves  at  least  two 
premises  :  one  to  the  effect  that  the  conclusion  must  follow, 
if  either  one  of  two  conditions  is  fulfilled ;  and  the  other 
to  the  effect  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  conditions  must 
be  fulfilled. 

Two  remarkable  instances  of  the  use  of  this  dilemma 
have  come  down  to  us  from  the  ancient  rhetoricians  in  re- 
gard to  a  certain  case  that  was  brought  into  court.  The 
case  arose  under  the  following  circumstances :  A  teacher 
of  law  and  rhetoric  took  a  pupil  with  the  understanding 
that  the  pupil  should  pay  for  his  instruction  when  he  had 
won  his  first  case  in  court.  The  pupil  received  his  instruc- 
tion and  then  never  undertook  to  plead  a  case  in  court; 
whereupon  the  teacher  becoming  impatient  sued  him  for  his 
tuition  fee. 

The  "teacher  presented  to  the  court  the  following  dilemma : 

I.   My  pupil  should  pay  me  his  tuition  fee ;  for 

A.  My  pupil  will  either  win  or  lose  this  first  case  of  his 
in  court ;  and 

B.  If  either  one  of  these  conditions  is  fulfilled,  he  must 
pay;  for 


132  Elements  of  Proof 

1.  If  he  wins,  then  he  must  pay  in  order  to  fulfill 
the  terms  of  his  contract ;  and 

2.  If  he  loses,  then  he  must  pay  because  the  court 
decides  in  my  favor. 

The  pupil,  however,  not  to  be  outdone  by  his  teacher, 
presented  to  the  court  the  following  dilemma : 

I.   I  should  not  pay  to  my  teacher  this  tuition  fee ;  for 

A.  I  shall  either  win  or  lose  this  first  case  of  mine  in 
court;  and 

B.  If  either  one  of  these  conditions  is  fulfilled,  I  should 
not  pay ;  for 

1.  If  I  win,  then  I  should  not  pay  because  the  court 
decides  in  my  favor ;  and 

2.  If  I  lose,  then  I  should  not  pay  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  contract. 

These  two  instances  show  the  baffling  nature  of  the  di- 
lemma; and  are  perhaps  too  clever  to  be  met  under  any 
ordinary  circumstances.  To  show,  however,  that  the  di- 
lemma is  used  with  effect  under  more  ordinary  conditions, 
another  example  is  given  below  from  a  modern  case  in  court :  * 

I.   The  witness,  Mr.  Oldham,  is  a  villain  whose  testimony 
cannot  be  relied  upon ;  for 

A.  When  the  witness  testified  that  he  shot  another  man 
for  the  mere  sake  of  shooting  some  one,  either  he 
told  the  truth,  or  he  lied  ;  and 

B.  In  either  case,  he  is  a  villain  whose  testimony  can- 
not be  relied  upon ;  for 

1.   If  he  told  the  truth,  then  he  is  an  assassinating 
villain  whose  testimony  cannot  be  relied  upon ;  and 


1  See  speech   by    Prentiss  In   Defense    of   Judge   Wilkinson ;    Great 
Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  111. 


Refutation  133 

2.   If  he  lied,  then  he  is  a  perjured  villain  whose 
testimony  cannot,  therefore,  be  relied  upon. 

The  Destructive  Dilemma.  —  The  destructive  dilemma, 
in  contrast  with  the  constructive  dilemma,  is  the  form  in 
which  this  device  usually  appears  in  refutation. 

The  destructive  dilemma  is  one  that  involves  at  least  two 
premises :  one  to  the  effect  that  the  conclusion  cannot  fol- 
low, unless  either  one  of  two  conditions  is  fulfilled ;  and 
the  other  to  the  effect  that  neither  one  of  these  two  condi- 
tions is  fulfilled. 

Two  good  examples  of  this  type  of  dilemma  are  found  in 
a  speech  of  John  C.  Calhoun  delivered  in  the  debate  over 
the  Ten-Regiment  Bill  during  the  Mexican  War.1  The 
first  of  these  dilemmas  was : 

I.  The  contention  that :  —  The  President  of  the  United 
States  has  authority  to  lay  duties  and  taxes  on  the  com- 
merce and  people  of  Mexico,  —  is  false ;  for 

A,  He  has  no  such  authority,  unless  it  has  been  con- 
ferred upon  him  either  by  the  Constitution  or  by 
the  laws ;  and 

B.  Neither  the  Constitution  nor  the  laws  have  con- 
ferred upon  him  this  authority. 

The  second  dilemma  presented  in  the  same  connection 
was: 

I.   The  President  has  had  no  such  authority  conferred  upon 
him  by  the  Constitution ;  for 
A.   If  he  has,  this  authority  must  have  been  included 

among  either  his  express  or  his  implied  powers ;  and 
JS.   Neither  his  express  nor  his  implied  powers  vest  him 

with  such  authority. 


1  See  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  204. 


134  Elements  of  Proof 

Refutation  Applied  to  the  Dilemma.  —  The  validity  of  a 
dilemma  depends  entirely  upon  whether  all  the  possibili- 
ties of  proof  are  exhausted  in  the  theories  that  are  presented  ; 
and  also  upon  whether  the  conclusion  necessarily  follows 
from  each  of  the  theories. 

To  refute  a  dilemma,  the  debater  should  always  seek, 
therefore :  First,  to  find  a  third  horn  on  which  he  may  es- 
cape; or  second,  to  destroy  one  or  both  of  the  horns  that 
threaten  him. 

If  the  second  method  is  employed  in  the  case  of  a  con- 
structive dilemma,  both  horns  must  be  destroyed;  but, 
in  the  case  of  a  destructive  dilemma,  either  horn  may  be 
destroyed. 

Expanded  Forms  of  the  Dilemma.  —  The  method  of  proof 
represented  by  the  dilemma  is  capable  of  indefinite  expan- 
sion according  to  the  number  of  horns  that  may  be  presented 
against  an  opponent.  If  the  proof  involves  two  horns,  it 
is  a  dilemma;  if  it  involves  three,  it  is  a  trilemma;  if  four, 
a  tetralemma;  and  if  five  or  more,  a  polylemma. 

Summary  of  Refutation.  —  To  become  a  thorough  mas- 
ter of  debate,  a  student  must  acquire  skill  in  the  use  of 
all  the  different  weapons  of  controversy.  These  weapons 
include  both  constructive  and  destructive  proof.  Refuta- 
tion, therefore,  which  consists  of  destructive  proof  is  one 
of  the  most  important  processes  in  debate,  and  the  student 
must  know  regarding  it  what  to  refute,  when  to  refute, 
where  to  refute,  and  how  to  refute.  He  should  practice 
continually  on  the  various  methods  of  refutation,  and  should 
give  particular  attention  to  turning  the  tables,  reductio  ad 
absurdum,  the  method  of  residues,  and  the  dilemma. 


PART  III.     BUILDING  THE   CASE 

CHAPTER  I 
DEFINING  THE  TERMS1 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  In  Part  I  of  this  text  under 
the  general  title,  Beginning  Principles,  sufficient  theory  has 
been  given  to  enable  the  student  to  begin  intelligently  the 
practice  of  debate.  In  Part  II,  under  the  general  title, 
Elements  of  Proof,  a  thorough  consideration  has  been  given 
to  all  the  elements  of  proof  that  must  be  used  by  a  debater 
in  the  practice  of  his  art.  And  now  in  Part  III,  under  the 
general  title  Building  the  Case,  it  is  planned  to  give  the  stu- 
dent a  thorough  understanding  of  the  process  by  which  all 
the  different  elements  of  proof  may  be  assembled  under  a 
proposition  to  constitute  what  is  known  as  a  case. 

Definition  of  a  Case.  —  A  case  consists  of  all  the  assem- 
bled proof  that  is  available  for  determining  the  alleged  truth 
of  a  proposition.  When  this  proof  is  assembled  in  such  a 
way  that  it  tends  to  establish  the  alleged  truth  of  a  proposi- 
tion, then  it  constitutes  an  Affirmative  case;  and  when  it  is 
assembled  in  such  a  way  that  it  tends  to  disestablish  the 
alleged  truth  of  a  proposition,  then  it  constitutes  a  Negative 
case. 

Process  of  Building  a  Case.  —  The  process  of  building  a 
case  is  one  in  which  a  solid  foundation  of  proof  is  laid  under  a 
proposition  to  give  it  firm  support ;  and  this  process  may  be 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Defining  the  Terms,  see  Appendix   A. 

135 


136 


Building  the  Case 


likened  to  laying  a  similar  solid  foundation  under  any  ma- 
terial structure.  The  supports  in  this  foundation  may  be 
referred  to  as :  the  main  points ;  the  subordinate  points ; 
and  the  evidence. 

A  graphic  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  a  case  lays 
solid  foundations  of  proof  under  a  proposition  is  given  in  the 
diagram  below : 


PROPOSITION 

M 

AIN 

POINT 

S 

su 

B-P 

01 

NT 

s 

ji 

'I 

II 

1 

'11 

sfi 

Importance  of  Building  the  Case.  —  The  general  process 
of  building  the  case  is  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of  a 
debater's  preparation  for  actual  debate ;  for,  without  a  fully 
developed  case  a  debater  cannot  hope  to  settle  finally  the 
alleged  truth  of  his  proposition ;  he  cannot  hope  to  avoid  the 
fatal  criticism  of  being  superficial;  and  he  cannot  hope  to 
escape  the  snares  and  pitfalls  that  will  be  set  for  him  in  the 
proof  of  his  opponents. 

The  Four  Main  Steps  in  Building  the  Case.  —  The  four 
main  steps  in  building  the  case  are : 

1.  Defining  the  Terms ; 

2.  Surveying  the  Proof ; 

3.  Finding  the  Issues;  and 

4.  Drawing  the  Brief. 

By  defining  the  terms  of  a  proposition,  the  debater  makes 
sure  of  the  exact  nature  of  the  proposition  to  be  upheld,  and, 
thereby,  lays  the  basis  for  excluding  much  proof  from  his 


Defining  the  Terms  137 

case  that  supports  propositions  of  an  entirely  different  na- 
ture. 

By  surveying  the  proof  under  a  proposition,  the  debater 
lays  out  all  the  logical  possibilities  of  proof  that  may  be 
employed  to  support  both  the  Affirmative  and  the  Negative 
sides  of  a  case. 

By  finding  the  issues  under  a  proposition,  the  debater  se- 
lects those  points  of  proof  that  he  himself  must  make  firm 
as  supports  for  his  proposition ;  and  separates  these  points 
from  other  points  that  in  no  way  affect  his  proposition,  and 
from  other  points  that  are  already  firmly  established  under 
his  proposition. 

And  then  by  drawing  the  brief  of  a  case,  the  debater  assem- 
bles around  the  issues  in  an  orderly  fashion  all  the  available 
proof  in  a  case  in  such  a  way  that  it  shows  clearly  every 
process  of  reasoning  by  which  the  proposition  is  upheld  or 
overthrown. 

Problems  of  Definition.  —  The  principal  problems  con- 
fronting the  student  in  an  attempt  to  define  the  terms  of  his 
proposition  are : 

1 .  What  terms  require  definition  ? 

2.  How  may  definitions  be  found  ? 

3.  How  may  definitions  be  formulated  ? 

4.  What  methods  of  definition  are  most  valuable  ?  —  and 

5.  How  may  definitions  be  tested  for  clearness  and  ac- 

curacy ? 

Terms  Requiring  Definition.  —  Not  all  terms  in  a  propo- 
sition, of  course,  require  definition;  but  only  those  terms 
that  may  give  rise  to  more  than  one  interpretation.  Such 
terms  usually  are  unfamiliar  terms,  technical  terms,  figurative 
terms,  abstract  terms,  and  very  general  terms. 


138  Building  the  Case 

To  illustrate  :  In  the  following  proposition  :  —  Resolved  : 
That  Professor  Huxley  in  his  Three  Lectures  on  Evolution 
completely  disproved  the  Miltonic  hypothesis  in  regard  to 
the  creation  of  the  world ;  —  the  term  Miltonic  hypothesis 
in  regard  to  the  creation  of  the  world  requires  definition,  be- 
cause it  is  unfamiliar. 

In  the  following  proposition  : — Resolved  :  That  employers 
generally  should  recognize  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop; 
—  the  term  closed  shop  requires  definition,  because  it  is 
technical. 

In  the  following  proposition  :  —  Resolved  :  That  the 
League  of  Nations  established  by  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  is 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  rope  of  sand ;  —  the  term  rope 
of  sand  requires  definition,  because  it  is  figurative. 

In  the  following  proposition :  —  Resolved :  That  any 
serious  affront  to  a  nation's  honor  is  sufficient  justification 
for  war ;  —  the  term  nation's  honor  requires  definition,  be- 
cause it  is  abstract. 

In  the  following  proposition  :  —  Resolved  :  That  all  New 
England  cities  with  a  population  of  less  than  500,000  and 
more  than  25,000,  should  adopt  the  city-manager  plan  of 
government ;  —  the  term  all  New  England  cities  with  a  pop- 
ulation of  less  than  500,000  and  more  than  25,000  requires 
definition,  because  it  is  very  general. 

Sources  of  Definition.  —  The  task  of  finding  a  definition 
to  make  clear  the  exact  meaning  of  a  term  seems,  at  first, 
like  a  very  simple  matter;  but,  in  reality,  it  is  often  very 
difficult. 

The  debater's  first  thought,  of  course,  is  to  consult  a  dic- 
tionary; but  a  definition  taken  from  a  dictionary  is  fre- 
quently inadequate ;  for,  in  many  instances,  it  is  too  short 
and  too  general  to  fit  the  exact  meaning  of  the  term  in  ques- 


Defining  the  Terms  139 

tion ;   and  in  many  other  instances,  it  is  too  technical  to  be 
readily  understood. 

The  debater's  second  thought  must  be,  therefore,  to  con- 
sult the  works  of  specialists  in  the  particular  field  to  which 
the  term  belongs.  Here,  he  is  likely  to  find  the  most  satis- 
factory definition ;  but  even  in  such  works,  he  is  sometimes 
disappointed ;  and  then,  as  a  last  resort,  he  must  construct 
a  definition  of  his  own  from  whatever  general  or  special  in- 
formation he  may  have  at  his  disposal. 

Methods  of  Formulating  Definitions.  —  Because  it  is 
frequently  necessary  for  a  debater  to  construct  his  own  defi- 
nitions, it  is  important  that  he  should  be  familiar  with  the 
six  common  methods  of  definition  employed  in  dictionaries. 
These  are : 

1.  Definition  by  Etymology ; 

2.  Definition  by  Analysis  ; 

3.  Definition  by  Exclusion ; 

4.  Definition  by  Example ; 

5.  Definition  by  Analogy ;  and 

6.  Definition  by  Context. 

Definition  by  Etymology.  —  The  first  common  method  of 
definition  is  called  definition  by  etymology.  This  method 
consists  in  explaining  the  meaning  of  a  term  by  showing  its 
derivation;  that  is,  by  showing  its  original  meaning,  or  by 
breaking  the  term  up  into  its  component  parts  and  showing 
the  literal  meaning  of  each. 

To  illustrate :  The  term  senate  might  be  defined  by  ety- 
mology as  an  assembly  of  old  men,  being  derived  from  the 
Latin  word  senatus,  which  in  turn  comes  from  the  Latin 
word  senex,  meaning  an  old  man,  and  signifies  an  assembly 
of  old  men. 


140  Building  the  Case 

And  similarly  the  term  parliament  may  be  defined  as  a 
conference  for  speaking,  being  derived  from  the  French  word 
parler,  to  speak,  and  the  termination  mentum,  an  institution 
for. 

The  vividness  of  this  method  of  definition  is  brought 
out  clearly  in  the  definitions  of  such  words  as  dilemma,  a 
two-horned  argument;  and  sophomore,  a  wise-foolish  person. 

Definition  by  Analysis.  —  The  second  common  method 
of  definition  is  called  definition  by  analysis.  This  method 
consists  in  explaining  the  meaning  of  a  term  by  setting  forth 
the  essential  characteristics  of  the  thing  that  the  term  rep- 
resents. A  statement  of  these  characteristics  may  include 
a  description  of  its  appearance,  its  parts,  its  origin,  and  its 
purpose. 

To  illustrate:  The  following  definition  is  one  that  is 
constructed  according  to  this  method : 

The  Panama  Canal  is  an  inter-oceanic  ship  canal  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  running  southeast  from  Colon  on 
the  Atlantic  side  to  Panama  City  on  the  Pacific  side;  con- 
structed with  locks  and  supplied  with  water  from  the 
Chagres  River  and  Gatun  Lake ;  built,  owned,  and  operated 
by  the  United  States  Government,  under  treaty  stipulations 
with  Great  Britain  and  the  Republic  of  Panama;  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  either  the  long,  hazardous  journey 
around  South  America  or  trans-shipment  of  goods  by  rail 
over  the  Isthmus ;  in  order  to  improve  the  naval  defenses 
of  the  United  States,  to  provide  a  cheap  water-route  from 
the  east  coast  to  points  on  the  west  coast  of  both  Americas, 
or  vice  versa,  and  to  provide  shorter  trade-routes  for  the 
commerce  of  the  whole  world. 

Definition  by  Exclusion.  —  The  third  common  method 
of  definition  is  called  definition  by  exclusion.     This  method 


Defining  the  Terms  141 

is  one  used  in  conjunction  with  the  method  by  analysis,  and 
consists  in  explaining  the  meaning  of  a  term  by  setting  forth 
what  it  does  not  mean;  that  is,  by  setting  aside  certain 
meanings  that  are  sometimes  erroneously  attached  to  it, 
and  by  differentiating  it  from  its  synonyms. 

To  illustrate :  The  first  part  of  the  following  definition  is 
constructed  according  to  this  method : 

Capital  punishment  in  the  United  States  does  not  assume 
the  form  of  beheading  according  to  the  literal  meaning  of 
the  term ;  but  assumes  the  form  usually  of  hanging  or  elec- 
trocution. 

Definition  by  Example.  —  The  fourth  common  method 
of  definition  is  called  definition  by  example.  This  method 
consists  in  explaining  the  meaning  of  a  general  term  by  citing 
examples  of  the  things  to  which  it  does,  or  does  not,  apply. 
This  method  of  definition  is  commonly  used  in  conjunction 
with  the  methods  by  analysis  and  by  exclusion. 

To  illustrate :  The  following  definition  for  the  most  part 
is  constructed  according  to  this  method : 

The  term  legal  tender  denotes  whatever  must  be  recognized 
under  the  authority  of  the  government  as  a  medium  of  com- 
mercial exchange.  In  most  countries,  it  consists  of  gold  or 
silver  coin  or  government  paper,  except  for  small  sums  when 
coins  made  from  copper  or  other  less  valuable  metals  are 
generally  used.  Legal  tender  may  vary,  however,  accord- 
ing to  the  times  and  the  country,  as,  for  example,  among  the 
Spartans  iron  was  the  recognized  medium  of  exchange ;  in 
primitive  Britain  a  white  woman  or  a  Saxon  slave-boy 
was  once  a  medium  of  exchange;  among  the  American 
Indians  wampum  was  the  recognized  medium;  among 
the  early  American  colonists  of  the  South,  tobacco  was 
the    medium;    and    in    Germany   during  the   World   War 


142  Building  the  Case 

coins  made  from  porcelain  were  authorized  by  the  govern- 
ment. 

Definition  by  Analogy.  —  The  fifth  common  method  of 
definition  is  called  definition  by  analogy.  This  method  con- 
sists in  explaining  the  meaning  of  a  term  by  comparing  it  to 
other  terms  of  a  somewhat  similar  meaning.  This  compari- 
son may  be  effected  either  by  the  mere  citation  of  synonyms 
or  by  the  use  of  similes.  Definitions  by  this  method  are 
commonly  used  in  conjunction  with  definitions  by  analysis 
and  by  exclusion. 

To  illustrate :  The  following  definition  by  analogy  is  one 
that  merely  cites  synonyms  : 

The  term  plebiscite  is  a  term  of  French  origin  that  corre- 
sponds exactly  to  the  more  common  term  referendum  as  this 
term  is  used  in  America.  The  term  plebiscite,  however, 
should  not  be  used  to  denote  what  is  commonly  known  in 
America  as  the  initiative. 

The  following  definition  by  analogy  is  one  that  employs 
similes : 

The  Electoral  College,  as  provided  for  in  the  United  States 
Constitution,  is  not  like  the  ordinary  college;  for  it  is  in  no 
sense  an  educational  institution;  but  it  is  rather  an  insti- 
tution which  is  intended  to  safeguard  the  election  of  a  Pres- 
ident; and  is  like  the  College  of  Cardinals  at  Rome  which 
assembles  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  Pope. 

Definition  by  Context.  —  The  sixth  and  last  common 
method  of  definition  is  called  definition  by  context.  This 
method  consists  in  making  plain  the  special  sense  in 
which  a  term  is  used  by  reference  to  the  words  immedi- 
ately preceding  or  following  it,  or  immediately  associated 
with  it,  in  the  same  discourse. 


Defining  the  Terms  143 

To  illustrate :  The  following  definitions  of  the  term  case 
are  made  according  to  this  method  : 

The  term  case,  when  employed  in  connection  with  medical 
and  surgical  practice,  means  a  patient  under  treatment  or 
art  instance  of  sickness  or  injury.  When  employed  in  con- 
nection with  law,  it  means  a  suit,  an  action,  or  a  cause. 
When  employed  in  connection  with  grammar,  it  means  one 
of  the  inflectional  forms  of  a  noun,  pronoun,  or  adjective, 
which  indicate  its  relation  to  other  words,  such  as  the 
nominative  case,  the  objective  case,  etc.  But  when  em- 
ployed in  debate,  it  means  all  the  assembled  proof  that  is 
available  for  determining  the  alleged  truth  of  a  proposition. 

An  instance  of  the  application  of  this  method  in  defining 
one  of  the  terms  in  a  proposition  is  found  in  connection  with 
the  following  proposition :  Resolved:  That  the  world  powers 
should  adopt  a  policy  of  disarmament  providing  for  a  per- 
manent naval  holiday.  The  term  naval  holiday  in  this  prop- 
osition very  plainly  does  not  refer  to  any  ordinary  holiday 
for  the  officers  and  men  of  the  navy ;  but  refers  to  a  scheme 
providing  for  a  cessation  in  the  building  programs  for  the 
navies  of  the  great  powers ;  because  the  term  naval  holiday 
is  used  in  a  proposition  in  connection  with  disarmament; 
and  it  is  not  a  single  specified  holiday,  but  a  permanent  holi- 
day. 

Most  Valuable  Methods  of  Definition.  —  All  the  different 
methods  of  definition  described  above  may  prove  serviceable 
at  times  to  the  debater ;  but  the  one  method  that  is  indis- 
pensable is  the  method  by  analysis.  In  conjunction  with 
this  method,  the  method  by  exclusion  will  be  used  almost 
invariably;  and,  hence,  the  method  by  analysis  and  the 
method  by  exclusion  are  the  most  valuable  methods  for  the 
debater. 


144 


Building  the  Case 


Fundamental  Character  of  Definition.  —  Definition  is 
fundamentally  a  process  of  fixing  the  boundary  lines  for  the 
meaning  of  a  term,  as  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  appearance 
of  the  stem-word  finis  in  the  word  definition  itself.  The 
process  of  definition  consists,  therefore,  in  establishing,  first, 
the  broadest  boundaries  for  the  meaning  of  a  term,  and  then 
in  drawing  these  boundaries  closer  and  closer,  so  as  to  in- 
clude only  what  the  term  specifies,  and  to  exclude  all  other 
suggested  or  associated  meanings. 

To  illustrate  the  process  of  definition  by  drawing  the 
boundary  lines  of  a  term  closer  and  closer,  the  following 
definition  of  debate,  with  accompanying  diagrams,  may  be 
used : 

Definition:  Debate  is  the  art  of  formal  and  oral  controversy. 


I.   Debate  is  an  art. 


Debate  is  an  art  of 
controversy. 


III.   Debate  is  an  art  of  formal 
controversy. 


IV. 


Debate  is  the  art  of  formal 
and  oral  controversy. 


Tests    of   Definitions   for    Clearness    and   Accuracy.  — 
When  a  debater  has  defined  his  terms  either  by  discovering 


Defining  the  Terms  145 

definitions  ready-made  or  by  formulating  his  own,  before 
using  these  definitions  he  should  test  them  to  see  whether 
they  are  clear  and  accurate.  For  this  purpose  the  following 
tests  are  provided : 

1.  Does  the  definition  classify  the  thing  to  be  defined? 

2.  Does  it  state  all  the  essential  characteristics  of  the 

thing  to  be  defined  ? 

3.  Does  it  differentiate  the  thing  to  be  defined  from  all 

other  things  with  which  it  is  likely  to  be  confused  ? 

4.  Does  it  use  the  term  to  be  defined  to  define  itself  ? 

5.  Does  it  employ  terms  that  are  more  familiar  than  the 

term  to  be  defined  ? 

Summary  of  Defining  the  Terms.  —  In  building  the  case, 
the  subject  of  definition  is  important;  because  a  debater 
must  define  the  terms  of  his  proposition  in  order  that  he  may 
select  proof  to  support  his  proposition,  and  not  proof  that 
supports  an  entirely  different  proposition.  A  debater, 
therefore,  should  study  this  subject  with  the  purpose  of  dis- 
covering :  First,  what  terms  require  definition ;  second,  how 
needed  definitions  may  be  found  ;  third,  how  definitions  may 
be  formulated ;  fourth,  what  methods  of  definition  are  most 
valuable ;  and  fifth,  how  definitions  may  be  tested  for  clear- 
ness and  accuracy.  When  a  debater  has  become  thoroughly 
proficient  in  the  process  of  defining  terms,  then  he  is  able  to 
undertake  the  first  step  in  building  a  case. 


CHAPTER  II 
SURVEYING   THE  PROOF1 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  The  first  step  in  building  a 
case  must  always  be  to  define  the  terms ;  for,  by  this  means, 
the  debater  establishes  the  exact  nature  of  the  proposition 
to  be  upheld,  and  thereby  lays  a  basis  for  determining  roughly 
what  proof  he  should  include  in  his  case  under  the  propo- 
sition, and  what  proof  he  must  exclude  from  his  case  be- 
cause it  supports  propositions  of  an  entirely  different  nature. 

The  next  step  then  should  be  to  push  still  further  this 
process  of  determining  what  must  be  included  in  a  case  by 
making  a  survey  of  all  the  logical  possibilities  of  proof  by 
which  the  proposition  could  be  either  upheld  or  overthrown. 
This  second  step  is  called  surveying  the  proof. 

No  process  in  the  entire  preparation  for  debate  is  more 
important  than  surveying  the  proof ;  for  only  by  this  means 
can  the  debater  feel  sure  that  he  has  missed  no  vital  point 
to  support  his  own  side  of  the  proposition  and  that  he  is 
ready  to  meet  whatever  line  of  argument  his  opponents  may 
advance. 

Process  of  Surveying  the  Proof.  —  The  process  of  survey- 
ing the  proof  consists  in  laying  out,  by  means  of  structural 
outlines,2  or  by  means  of  diagrams,  or  by  means  of  these  two 
devices  combined,  all  the  logical  possibilities  of  proof  that 
might  be  used  to  support  or  overthrow  the  proposition. 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Surveying  the  Proof,  see  Appendix  A. 

2  See  page  37. 

146 


Surveying  the  Proof  147 

Survey  Determined  by  Type  of  Proposition.  —  The 
method  of  surveying  the  proof  varies  fundamentally  according 
to  the  type  of  proposition  under  discussion.  A  very  differ- 
ent method  is  employed  for  surveying  the  proof  under  a 
proposition  of  fact  from  that  which  is  employed  for  survey- 
ing the  proof  under  a  proposition  of  policy ;  and,  hence,  the 
whole  subject  of  surveying  the  proof  must  be  approached : 
first,  from  the  standpoint  of  what  is  necessary  for  a  propo- 
sition of  fact;  and,  then,  from  the  standpoint  of  what  is 
necessary  for  a  proposition  of  policy. 

These  two  types  of  proposition  have  been  defined  in  the 
chapter  on  Choosing  the  Subject. x  A  proposition  of  fact  is 
one  that  affirms  or  denies  the  existence  of  things,  the  occur- 
rence of  acts,  the  classification  of  objects,  or  the  connection 
of  events.  And  a  proposition  of  policy  is  one  that  affirms 
or  denies  that  a  specified  course  of  action,  in  preference  to 
other  possible  courses  of  action,  should  be  adopted. 

I.   Survey  for  Proposition  of  Fact 

Survey  of  the  Proof  under  a  Proposition  of  Fact.  —  A 

survey  of  the  proof  under  a  proposition  of  fact  will  reveal  all 
the  different  possibilities  of  proof  by  which  the  proposition 
may  be  upheld  or  overthrown.  These  various  possibilities 
of  proof  are  given  in  the  following  structural  outline : 

I.   [Proposition]  The  proposition  of  fact  is  true ;  for 
[Possibilities  of  Proof] 

A.  The  proposition  is  supported  by  direct  evidence  from 
reliable  authorities. 

B.  The  proposition  is  supported  by  general  laws  or  prin- 
ciples of  human  experience. 


See  pages  20-21. 


148  Building  the  Case 

C.  The  subject  in  controversy  may  be  classified  in  such 
a  way  as  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  the  proposition. 

D.  The  proposition  is  made  probable  by  prior  facts.- 

E.  The  proposition  is  made  probable  by  subsequent  facts. 

F.  If  general,  the  proposition  is  supported  by  numerous 
examples. 

G.  If  specific,  the  proposition  is  supported  by  numerous 
similar  instances. 

H.   No  counter  proposition  can  be  true. 

In  this  survey  of  the  proof  for  a  proposition  of  fact,  it  will 
be  noted  that  the  first  seven  points  suggest  proof  by  means 
of  each  of  the  following  types  of  argument:  (1)  Argument 
from  Authority ;  (2)  Argument  from  Generalization ;  (3)  Ar- 
gument from  Classification;  (4)  Argument  from  Ante- 
cedent Probability ;  (5)  Argument  from  Sign ;  (6)  Argument 
by  Induction ;  and  (7)  Argument  by  Analogy. l  The  eighth 
point,  then,  will  be  proved,  like  any  proposition  of  fact,  by 
the  methods  suggested  in  the  first  seven  points. 

For  certain  varieties  of  propositions  of  fact,  some  of  these 
possibilities  of  proof  may  not  be  applicable ;  but  the  debater 
should  not  rest  in  the  preparation  of  his  case  under  any 
proposition  of  fact  until  he  has  investigated  the  possibility 
of  applying  each  of  these  methods  of  proof. 

The  points  in  this  survey  are  all  laid  out  as  they  would 
be  phrased  in  support  of  the  Affirmative  side  of  the  proposi- 
tion. If  treated  from  a  Negative  point  of  view,  however, 
they  would,  with  equal  accuracy,  suggest  all  the  possibilities 
of  proof  for  the  Negative. 

Application  of  the  Survey  under  a  Proposition  of  Fact.  — 
The  structural  outline  given  above  in  the  survey  for  a  prop- 
osition of  fact  is  intended  merely  to  show  the  logical  possi- 


1  See  chapter  on  Argument,  pages  84,  91,  95. 


Surveying  the  Proof  149 

bilities  of  proof  under  such  a  proposition.  The  points  given 
in  this  survey  should  be  regarded,  then,  merely  as  formulas 
for  suggesting  the  actual  points  that  would  be  used  in  a 
specific,  concrete  case.  This  structural  outline  has  its 
practical  application,  therefore,  when  it  is  used  to  discover 
actual  points  in  actual  cases. 

An  illustration  of  the  practical  application  of  this  struc- 
tural outline  may  be  seen  in  the  following  brief-outline  of 
actual  points  in  an  actual  case.  This  case  was  one  in  which 
William  H.  Seward  defended  William  Freeman,  a  negro,  on 
a  charge  of  murder,  contending  that  Freeman  was  insane. * 
In  this  outline,  it  will  be  noted  that  with  only  one  exception 
each  of  the  points  in  the  survey  (pp.  147-148)  has  suggested 
an  actual  point  in  the  case. 

I.    [Proposition]  William  Freeman  is  insane ;  for 
[Actual  Points  in  the  Proof] 

A.  His  own  mother  has  testified  that  he  became  insane 
after  a  brutal  assault  made  upon  him  by  his  jailer. 
(See  Point  A,  page  147.) 

B.  When  a  man  has  lost  his  memory,  speaks  incoherently, 
wears  a  vacant  expression,  is  subject  to  delusions, 
kills  a  whole  family  without  any  motive,  and  then 
cannot  even  recognize  his  counsel,  he  is  insane. 
(See  Point  B,  page  147.) 

C.  Freeman's  condition  may  be  classified  as  a  combina- 
tion of  mania  and  dementia.     (Point  C,  page  148.) 

D.  There  were  in  William  Freeman's  life  many  predis- 
posing causes  for  insanity ;   (Point  D,  page  148)  for 

1.  He  was  the  son  of  drunken,  degenerate  parents. 

2.  He  was  unjustly  imprisoned   before   the   alleged 
murders  for  a  crime  he  did  not  commit. 


1  See  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pages  149-190. 


150  Building  the  Case 

3.   While  in  prison,  he  was  brutally  beaten  over  the 
head  with  a  shovel  by  his  jailer. 

E.  Since  the  assault  upon  him  in  the  jail,  he  has  shown 
many  signs  of  insanity ;   (see  Point  E,  page  148)  for 

1.  He  has  no  memory  of  the  awful   events   on  the 
night  of  the  alleged  murders. 

2.  He  has  always  spoken  incoherently. 

3.  He  has  uniformly  worn  an  idiotic  smile. 

4.  He  has  been  subject  to  delusions. 

5.  He  has  killed  a  whole  family  without  any  motive. 

6.  He  is  indifferent  to  his  surroundings. 

7.  He  cannot  even  recognize  his  counsel. 

F.  There  is  a  precedent  for  adjudging  him  insane  in  the 
case  of  Kleim  that  was  recently  decided  in  the  courts 
of  this  same  State.     (See  Point  G,  page  148.) 

G.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man  so  ignorant  could  success- 
fully feign  insanity.     (See  Point  H,  page  148.) 

In  this  outline  of  actual  points  in  an  actual  case,  no  point 
is  given  to  correspond  with  Point  F  in  the  previous  structural 
outline  because  the  proposition  under  discussion  is  specific, 
not  general.  Each  of  the  other  points,  however,  in  the  struc- 
tural outline,  has  suggested  an  actual  point  in  this  actual 
case,  demonstrating  thereby  the  practical  application  of  this 
survey  of  the  proof  under  a  proposition  of  fact. 


II.    Survey  for  Proposition  of  Policy 

Survey  of  the  Proof  under  a  Proposition  of  Policy.  —  A 

proposition  of  policy  presents  for  solution  a  much  more  com- 
plex problem  than  a  proposition  of  fact ;  and,  hence,  a  sur- 
vey of  the  proof  for  this  type  of  proposition  will  involve 
many  more  points  than  appear  in  a  survey  of  the  proof  for  a 


Surveying  the  Proof  151 

proposition  of  fact.  To  make  all  these  points  clear,  a  survey 
will  be  made,  first,  of  all  the  main  points  under  the  proposi- 
tion ;  and,  then,  of  all  the  various  phases  of  proof  that  must 
be  considered  under  these  main  points. 

Survey  of  the  Main  Points  under  a  Proposition  of  Policy. 

—  A  survey  of  all  the  main  points  that  may  arise  under  a 
proposition  of  policy  presents  the  following  possibilities  of 
proof,  phrased,  in  the  first  instance,  as  they  would  be,  to 
support  the  Affirmative  side  of  the  proposition ;  and,  in  the 
second  instance,  as  they  would  be,  to  support  the  Negative 
side  of  the  proposition  : 

Survey  of  Main  Points  for  the  Affirmative 

I.    [Proposition]  The  proposed   policy  should  be  adopted; 
for 

[Possibilities  of  Proof] 

A.  Some  change  in  policy  is  necessary. 

B.  The  proposed  policy  would  be  beneficial. 

C.  The  proposed  policy  would  not  introduce   new  and 
worse  evils. 

D.  No  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
the  proposed  policy ;  for 

1.  No   substitute  policy  would  be   more   beneficial 
than  the  proposed  policy ;  and 

2.  Any  substitute  policy  would  introduce  new  and 
worse  evils. 

These  same  points,  when  re-phrased  to  support  the  Nega- 
tive side  of  the  proposition,  will  present  the  following  possi- 
bilities of  proof : 


152  Building  the  Case 

Survey  of  Main  Points  for  the  Negative 

I.    [Proposition]  The  proposed  policy  should  not  be  adopted ; 
for 

[Possibilities  of  Proof] 

A.  No  change  in  policy  is  necessary. 

B.  The  proposed  policy  would  not  produce  the  specified 
benefits. 

C.  The  proposed  policy  would  introduce  new  and  worse 
evils. 

Z>.   Some  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory 
than  the  proposed  policy ;  for 

1.  Some  substitute  policy  would  be  more  beneficial 
than  the  proposed  policy ;   and 

2.  The  substitute  policy  would   not   introduce   new 
and  worse  evils. 

Demand  for  Constructive  and  Destructive  Proof  on  the 
Main  Points.  —  By  glancing  at  the  two  structural  outlines 
(pp.  151,  152)  the  student  will  discover  that  on  certain  points 
the  Affirmative  must  advance  constructive  proof,  whereas 
the  Negative  should  advance  only  proof  in  refutation;1 
and  on  certain  other  points  the  Negative  must  advance  con- 
structive proof,  whereas  the  Affirmative  should  advance 
only  proof  in  refutation. 

The  Affirmative,  for  example,  must  advance  constructive 
proof  on  Points  A  and  B  and  on  the  second  sub-point  under 
D,  whereas  it  should  advance  only  proof  in  refutation  on 
Point  C  and  on  the  first  sub-point  under  D. 

The  Negative,  likewise,  must  advance  constructive  proof 
on  Point  C  and  the  first  sub-point   under  D,  whereas  it 


1  See  page  120, 


Surveying  the  Proof  153 

should  advance  only  proof  in  refutation  on  Points  A  and 
B  and  on  the  second  sub-point  under  D. 

Two  Chief  Divisions  of  the  Case.  —  From  the  outlines 
(pp.  151,  152)  it  is  apparent  that  the  two  chief  divisions  into 
which  a  case  may  be  divided  under  a  proposition  of  policy 
will  center  about  the  direct  discussion  on  the  main  proposi- 
tion and  about  the  discussion  on  some  substitute  policy  or 
policies. 

These  two  chief  divisions  may  be  called,  therefore,  the 
main  case,  involving  a  discussion  of  Points  A,  B,  and  C; 
and  the  substitute  case  or  cases,  involving  a  discussion  of 
Point  D  and  its  two  sub-points. 

Four  Subdivisions  of  the  Case.  —  Under  the  two  chief 
divisions  of  a  case  for  a  proposition  of  policy,  there  may  then 
be  other  subdivisions  that  will  be  determined  by  the  burden 
of  proof1  on  the  various  points  in  the  outlines  (pp.  151, 152). 

Wherever  one  side  has  the  obligation  to  advance  construc- 
tive proof  on  any  of  these  points,  it  has  the  burden  of  proof, 
and  must  take  the  initiative  in  advancing  proof. 

Another  glance  at  the  outlines  (pp.  151,  152)  will  show  that 
the  Affirmative  has  the  burden  of  proof  on  Points  A  and  B; 
that  the  Negative  has  the  burden  on  Point  C  and  again  on  the 
first  sub-point  under  D;  and  that  the  Affirmative  has  the 
burden  on  the  second  sub-point  under  D. 

The  most  natural  subdivisions  of  the  case  under  the  two 
chief  divisions  would  be,  therefore  : 

First  Subdivision  —  Points  A  and  B. 

Second  Subdivision  —  Point  C. 

Third  Subdivision  —  First  Sub-Point  under  Z). 

Fourth  Subdivision  —  Second  Sub-Point  under  D. 


1  See  pages  18-19. 


154  Building  the  Case 

Survey  of  all  the  Different  Phases  of  Proof  under  a  Prop- 
osition of  Policy.  —  A  survey  of  all  the  main  points  under  a 
proposition  of  policy,  like  that  in  the  outlines  (pp.  151,  152), 
will  be  of  great  value  to  a  debater  in  helping  him  to  discover 
the  points  that  he  must  investigate  in  his  case;  but  this 
survey  should  be  carried  much  further,  if  the  debater  hopes 
to  reach  the  really  vital  points  in  the  controversy. 

When  this  survey  is  carried  further,  it  presents  all  the 
logical  possibilities  of  proof  under  these  main  points,  and 
then  becomes  a  survey  of  all  the  different  phases  of  proof 
that  may  be  involved  in  the  discussion  of  a  proposition  of 
policy. 

Such  a  survey  will  involve  the  following  points,  phrased 
as  they  would  be  to  support  the  Affirmative : 
I.    [Proposition]  The  proposed  policy  should  be  adopted  ;  for 

The  Main  Case 
(First  Subdivision) 

A.  Some  change  in  policy  is  necessary ;  for 

Phase  I:  —  There  are  existing  or  threatened  evils ; 

and 
Phase  II:  —  Existing  or  threatened  evils  are  due  to 

defects  in  the  present  policy. 

B.  The  proposed  policy  would  be  beneficial ;  for 
Phase  III:  —  The  proposed  policy  makes  material 

changes  from  the  present  policy ;  and 
Phase  IV:  —  The  proposed  policy  would  remove  or 
diminish  existing  or  threatened  evils. 

(Second  Subdivision) 

C.  The  proposed  policy  would  not  introduce  new  and 
worse  evils ;  for 


Surveying  the  Proof  155 

Phase  V:  —  The  proposed  policy  would  not  result 

in  alleged  new  evils ;  or 
Phase  VI:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  not  really 

be  evils ;  or 
Phase  VII:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would   not   be 

worse  than  existing  or  threatened  evils. 

The  Substitute  Case  or  Cases 

D.   No  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
the  proposed  policy ;  for 

(Third  Subdivision) 

1.  No  substitute  policy  would   be  more    beneficial 
than  the  proposed  policy ;  for 

Phase  VIII:  —  There  is  no  material  difference 
between  any  substitute  policy  and  the  pres- 
ent policy ;  or 

Phase  IX:  —  There  is  no  material  difference 
between  any  substitute  policy  and  the  pro- 
posed policy ;  and 

Phase  X:  —  No  substitute  policy  could  remove 
or  diminish  existing  or  threatened  evils ;  or 

Phase  XI:  —  No  substitute  policy  could  re- 
move or  diminish  existing  or  threatened  evils 
so  effectually  as  the  proposed  policy. 

(Fourth  Subdivision) 

2.  Any  substitute  policy  would  introduce  new  and 
worse  evils ;  for 

Phase   XII:  — Any    substitute    policy    would 

result  in  new  evils ;  and 
Phase    XIII:  —  The    alleged  new  evils   would 

really  be  evils ;  and 


156  Building  the  Case 

Phase  XIV: —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  be 
worse  than  existing  or  threatened  evils ;  and 

Phase  XV:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  be 
worse  than  the  evils  ascribed  to  the  proposed 
policy. 

The  points  of  proof  contained  in  this  survey  are  all  laid  out 
as  they  would'  be  phrased  in  support  of  the  Affirmative  side 
of  the  proposition.  If  they  were  treated  from  a  Negative 
point  of  view,  however,  they  would,  with  equal  accuracy, 
present  a  survey  of  all  the  possibilities  of  proof  for  the  Nega- 
tive. 

Names  of  the  Four  Subdivisions  of  the  Case.  —  For  a 

detailed  study  of  the  possibilities  of  proof  represented  in  the 
survey,  pp.  154-156,  it  will  be  necessary  to  treat  the  fifteen 
Phases,  enumerated  there,  in  groups  according  to  the  partic- 
ular subdivision  of  the  case  in  which  they  appear ;  and,  for 
convenience,  it  is  desirable  that  each  of  these  four  subdivi- 
sions should  be  given  a  name. 

These  various  subdivisions  of  the  case  may  be  named  very 
appropriately  as  follows :     , 
First :      The  Affirmative's  Main  Constructive  Case 
Second:  The  Negative's  Main  Constructive  Rebuttal 
Third:     The  Negative's  Constructive  Substitute  Case 
Fourth:    The  Affirmative's  Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the 
Substitute  Case 

(A)    The  Affirmative's  Main  Constructive  Case 

The  Affirmative's  Main  Constructive  Case.  —  The  Affirm- 
ative's Main  Constructive  Case  consists  of  the  first  four 
Phases  in  the  survey,  pp.  154-156  :  namely,  — 

Phase  I :  —  There  are  existing  or  threatened  evils ;   and 


Surveying  the  Proof  157 

Phase  II:  —  Existing  or  threatened  evils  are  due  to  de- 
fects in  the  present  policy;  and 

Phase  III: — The  proposed  policy  makes  material  changes 
from  the  present  policy;  and 

Phase  IV:  —  The  proposed  policy  would  remove  or 
diminish  existing  or  threatened  evils. 

This  subdivision  of  the  complete  case  is  called  the  Affirm- 
ative's Main  Constructive  Case :  first,  because  these  four 
Phases  of  proof  constitute  a  part  of  the  Main  Case;  and 
second,  because  on  these  four  Phases  the  Affirmative  is 
under  obligation  to  advance  constructive  proof.  If  the 
Affirmative  cannot  establish  its  contention  under  each  of 
these  four  Phases,  it  cannot  hope  to  establish  its  case. 

The  Negative  may  admit  the  Affirmative's  proof  under  all 
of  these  four  Phases  and  build  its  case  around  other  Phases, 
i.e.,  around  Phases  V  to  XI ;  or  it  may  refute  the  Affirma- 
tive's proof  under  one  or  more  of  these  four  Phases.  If  the 
Negative  can  refute  the  Affirmative's  proof  under  any  one 
of  these  four  Phases,  the  Affirmative  cannot  hope  to  estab- 
lish its  case. 

When  the  Negative  undertakes  to  refute  the  position  of 
the  Affirmative  on  each  of  thes'e  four  Phases,  it  will  express 
these  Phases  as  follows : 

Phase  I:  —  There  are  no  existing  or  threatened  evils ; 
and 

Phase  II:  —  Even  if  there  were  existing  or  threatened 
evils,  these  would  not  be  due  to  defects  in  the  pres- 
ent policy;  and 

Phase  III:  —  Even  if  there  were  existing  or  threatened 
evils,  and  even  if  these  were  due  to  defects  in  the 
present   policy,  the   proposed  policy  would   do  no 


158  Building  the  Case 

good,  because  it  makes  no  material  change  from 
the  present  policy ;  and 
Phase  IV:  —  Even  if  there  were  existing  or  threatened 
evils,  and  even  if  these  evils  were  due  to  defects  in 
the  present  policy,  and  even  if  the  proposed  policy 
did  make  material  changes  from  the  present  policy, 
even  then  the  proposed  policy  would  not  remove  or 
diminish  existing  or  threatened  evils. 

Application  of  the  Phase-System  in  Building  the  Affirma- 
tive's Main  Constructive  Case.  —  The  practical  application 
of  the  Phase-System  in  building  the  Affirmative's  Main  Con- 
structive Case  maybe  seen  in  the  following  brief -outline  * 
presenting  actual  points  in  an  actual  case.  This  case  was 
used  by  Edmund  Burke  in  his  great  plea  for  Conciliation 
with  the  American  Colonies.2  In  this  outline,  it  will  be  noted 
that  each  of  the  first  four  Phases  has  suggested  an  actual 
point  in  the  case. 

I.    [Proposition]  England  should  adopt  Burke's   policy  of 
conciliation  with  the  American  colonies ;  for 

[Actual  Points  in  the  Proof] 

A.  Some  change  in  policy  is  necessary ;  for 

Phase  I:  —  America  is  now  in  a  state  of  chronic  tu- 
mult and  disorder ;  and 

Phase  II: — The  present  tumults  and  disorders  in 
America  are  due  to  the  present  policy  of  coercing 
the  colonies  to  enforce  taxation  by  Parliament. 

B.  Burke's  policy  of   conciliation  would   be   beneficial; 
for 


1  See  page  37. 

2  See  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  1-74. 


Surveying  the  Proof 


159 


Phase  III:  —  Burke's  policy  would  substitute,  for 
the  present  policy  of  coercion  to  enforce  taxation 
by  Parliament,  a  policy  of  concession  authorizing 
taxation  by  colony  grant ;  and 

Phase  IV:  —  A  policy  of  concession  authorizing 
taxation  by  colony  grant  would  restore  peace. 

Diagram  Showing  the  Affirmative's  Main  Constructive 
Case.  —  Thus  far,  in  explaining  the  process  of  surveying 
the  proof,  only  structural  outlines  presenting  possibilities 
of  proof  have  been  used.  These  outlines  are,  of  course, 
invaluable;  and  yet,  for  the  purpose  of  making  clear  at  a 
glance  all  these  possibilities  of  proof  in  their  relation  to  one 
another,  a  method  of  surveying  proof  for  propositions  of 
policy  by  means  of  diagrams  will  prove  equally  valuable. 

The  following  diagram  is  given,  therefore,  to  represent  a 
survey  of  the  proof  by  Phases  for  the  Affirmative's  Main 
Constructive  Case : 


Diagram  I 

(Showing 

Possibilities  of  Proof 

in 

Phase 

s  I  to  IV) 

Existing  or 

Removal 

or  Diminution  of 

Threatened  Evils 

Existing  or 

Threatened  Evils 

Detrimental 

Beneficial 

Effect 

Effect 

< 

>  PHASE  I 

< 

> 

j 

i 

' 

1 

1=1 

i 

© 

> 

«0 

© 

gj 

V 

■     H 

to 
8 

< 

3 

3 

Ph 

1 

l 

phase  nr 

& 

1 

BD 

Cause 

(Essential  Difference) 

Cause 

Defects  in 

Essentials  of 

Presei 

it  Policy 

Proposed  I 

'olicy 

160  Building  the  Case 

In  this  diagram,  the  existing  or  threatened  evils  spoken 
of  in  Phase  I  are  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  top  of 
the  left-hand  vertical  line.  The  defects  in  present  policy, 
to  which  these  existing  or  threatened  evils  are  attributed  in 
Phase  II,  are  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  base  of  the 
left-hand  vertical  line.  The  essential  parts  of  the  proposed 
policy,  in  which  according  to  Phase  III  it  differs  from  the 
present  policy,  are  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  base 
of  the  right-hand  vertical  line.  And  the  beneficial  effects, 
obtained  from  the  proposed  policy  according  to  Phase  IV, 
are  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  top  of  the  right-hand 
vertical  line. 

With  the  exception  of  Phase  I,  which  is  represented  by  a 
heavy  dot,  all  Phases  are  represented  by  lines,  which  show 
some  sort  of  relationship  between  the  terms  that  mark  their 
extremities.  Phase  II  and  Phase  IV,  for  example,  are 
represented  by  vertical  lines  with  arrow-heads  pointing 
upwards;  and  Phase  III  is  represented  by  a  horizontal 
dotted  line.  The  vertical  lines  with  arrow-heads  in  each 
case  show  a  cause-and-effect  relationship  between  the  thing 
at  their  top  and  the  thing  at  their  base.  The  arrow-head 
indicates  the  direction  in  which  the  force  of  causation  oper- 
ates —  the  thing  at  the  top  being  an  effect,  and  the  thing  at 
the  base  being  a  cause.  The  horizontal  dotted  line  shows  a 
relationship  of  essential  difference  between  the  terms  at  its 
extremities. 

Two  striking  characteristics  of  this  diagram  should  be 
carefully  noted  by  the  student : 

First,  the  beneficial  effect  recorded  at  the  top  of  the  right- 
hand  vertical  line  must  be  the  exact  opposite  of  the  detri- 
mental effect  recorded  at  the  top  of  the  left-hand  vertical 
line;  and 


Surveying  the  Proof  161 

Second,  the  essentials  of  the  proposed  policy  at  the  base  of 
the  right-hand  vertical  line  must  be  exactly  opposite  to,  or 
in  complete  contrast  with,  the  defects  in  the  present  policy 
at  the  base  of  the  left-hand  vertical  line. 

The  theories  underlying  the  proof  in  this  diagram  are : 

First,  that,  if  existing  or  threatened  -evils  (Phase  I)  are  to 
be  removed,  they  must  be  traced  to  their  root  causes  in  the 
present  policy  (Phase  II) . 

Second,  that,  if  any  proposed  policy  is  to  be  effectual  in 
removing  existing  or  threatened  evils,  it  must  be  essentially 
different  from  the  present  policy ;  for,  otherwise,  no  different 
results  could  be  expected  from  it  than  from  the  present 
policy  (Phase  III) ;  and 

Third,  that  the  only  benefits  that  can  result  from  any  new 
policy  must  consist  in  the  removal  or  diminution  of  evils 
resulting  from  the  present  policy  (Phase  IV). 

If  this  diagram  were  filled  in  to  represent  the  first  four 
Phases  of  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation  with  the  American 
Colonies,  it  would  appear  as  follows : 

Diagram  I 

(Showing  Actual  Points  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  IV) 

Tumults  Restoration 

and  Disorders  of  Peace 

in  America  in  America 

phase  r 


PHASE  III 

MtllltUllMMMtMMIM «HMM  ««•»•••••■•■•'•'•■•  •••■■•••• 

Coercion  to  Concession 

Enforce  Taxation  Authorizing  Taxation 

by  Parliament  by  Colony  Grant 


162  Building  the  Case 

Process  of  Filling  in  a  Diagram  for  the  Affirmative's 
Main  Constructive  Case. — The  diagram,  page  161,  looks 
very  simple  when  it  has  been  filled  in  accurately  for  a  given 
proposition ;  but  the  process  of  filling  it  in  with  specific  mate- 
rial is  not  so  simple,  for  this  process  requires  a  searching  in- 
vestigation into  the  facts  of  the  case  and  the  utmost  care 
and  deliberation  in  adjusting  these  facts  to  the  necessary 
theory. 

At  first  thought,  the  natural  method  of  procedure  for 
filling  in  this  diagram  might  seem  to  be  to  fill  in  the  material 
for  Phase  I  and  then  pass  on  in  order  through  Phases  II,  III, 
and  IV ;  but  this  method,  in  most  cases,  soon  leads  to  grief ; 
for  Phase  I  calls  for  existing  or  threatened  evils,  and  yet 
not  all  the  existing  or  threatened  evils  in  the  universe  will 
be  relevant  to  the  particular  case  in  hand,  but  only  those 
existing  or  threatened  evils  that  the  proposed  policy  is  in- 
tended to  remove  or  diminish.  The  filling  in  of  Phase  I, 
therefore,  on  this  diagram  must  be  postponed  until  the  evil 
named  in  this  Phase  can  be  definitely  related  to  the  purpose 
of  the  proposed  policy. 

If  the  problem  of  building  a  case  originated  in  an  attempt 
to  discover  a  proposition  that  would  remove  known  existing 
or  threatened  evils,  then  the  filling  in  of  this  diagram  would 
logically  begin  with  Phase  I ;  but  generally  the  problem  of 
building  a  case  for  debate  does  not  originate  with  a  state- 
ment of  known  existing  or  threatened  evils  for  which  a  rem- 
edy is  to  be  found,  but  in  a  definite  proposition  the  purpose 
of  which  is  to  be  discovered  by  the  debater. 

To  fill  in  this  diagram,  a  debater  should  always  begin 
with  a  definition  of  the  proposed  policy  by  the  method  of 
analysis,1  and  this  definition  should  always  involve  three 
parts  given  in  the  following  order : 
1  See  page  140. 


Surveying  the  Proof  163 

1.  A  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  policy; 

2.  A  statement  of  the  essential  parts  of  the  proposed 

policy;  and 

3.  A  statement  of  the  essential  difference  between  the 

proposed  policy  and  the  present  policy  that  is  em- 
ployed to  accomplish  the  same  purpose. 

With  such  a  definition,  the  debater  may  then  proceed  to 
fill  in  his  diagram.  The  purpose  of  the  proposed  policy  repre- 
sents the  beneficial  effect  to  be  obtained  from  this  policy, 
and  should  be  placed  at  the  top  of  the  line  representing  Phase 
IV.  The  essential  parts  of  the  proposed  policy  should  be 
placed  at  the  base  of  the  line  representing  Phase  IV.  The 
essential  parts  of  the  present  policy,  in  which  it  differs  from 
the  proposed  policy,  and  which  prevent  it  from  accomplish- 
ing the  purpose  of  the  proposed  policy,  should  be  placed  at 
the  base  of  the  line  representing  Phase  II.  And  then  a  con- 
dition opposite  to  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  policy  should  be 
named  as  the  existing  or  threatened  evil,  and  should  be 
placed  at  the  point  indicated  as  Phase  I. 

To  illustrate  this  process  in  connection  with  Burke's  case 
on  Conciliation,  the  following  definition  may  be  used  for  his 
proposed  policy : 

1.  The  purpose  of  Burke's  policy  is  to  restore  peace  in 

America. 

2.  Burke's  policy  consists  in  complete  concession  to  the 

demands  of  the  colonists  regarding  taxation  and  au- 
thorizes a  system  of  taxation  depending  entirely  on 
voluntary  grants  of  revenue  from  the  colonies. 

3.  Burke's  policy  differs  from  the  present  policy,  in  that 

it  substitutes,  for  a  policy  of  coercion  to  enforce  tax- 
ation by  Parliament,  a  policy  of  concession  author- 
izing taxation  by  colony  grant. 


164  Building  the  Case 

From  such  a  definition,  all  the  points  on  the  diagram,  page 
159,  may  be  easily  filled  in.  At  the  top  of  the  line  repre- 
senting Phase  IV,  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  policy  will  be 
placed :  namely,  —  Restoration  of  Peace  in  America.  At 
the  base  of  the  line  representing  Phase  IV,  the  essential  parts 
of  the  proposed  policy  will  be  placed :  namely,  —  Conces- 
sion Authorizing  Taxation  by  Colony  Grant.  At  the  base  of 
the  line  representing  Phase  II,  the  essential  parts  of  the  pres- 
ent policy  will  be  placed :  namely,  —  Coercion  to  Enforce 
Taxation  by  Parliament.  And,  then,  at  the  point  indicated 
as  Phase  I,  a  condition  opposite  to  the  purpose  of  the  pro- 
posed policy  will  be  placed :  namely,  —  Tumults  and  Dis- 
orders in  America. 

Drawing  Off  the  Actual  Points  from  a  Diagram  for  the 
Affirmative's  Main  Constructive  Case.  —  When  once  an 
accurate  diagram  has  been  made  for  the  actual  points  in  the 
Affirmative's  Main  Constructive  Case  under  a  proposition 
of  policy,  it  is  a  simple  matter  to  draw  off  these  points  for 
use  in  debate.  One  simply  has  to  recall  the  general  phrase- 
ology of  the  point  expressed  in  each  of  the  Phases,  and  then 
remember  that  Phase  I  is  represented  by  a  single  heavy  dot, 
whereas  Phases  II,  III,  and  IV  are  represented  by  lines 
showing  a  definite  type  of  relationship  between  the  terms  at 
their  extremities. 

Following  out  these  directions,  the  student  would  draw 
off  from  the  diagram,  page  161,  representing  the  first  four 
Phases  of  Burke's  case,  the  points  given  below : 

Phase  I:  —  America  is  now  in  a  state  of  chronic  tumult 
and  disorder ;  and 

Phase  II:  —  The  present  tumults  and  disorders  in  Amer- 
ica are  due  to  the  present  policy  of  coercing  the  colo- 
nies to  enforce  taxation  by  Parliament. 


Surveying  the  Proof  165 

Phase  III:  —  Burke 's  policy  would  substitute,  for  the 
present  policy  of  coercion  to  enforce  taxation  by 
Parliament,  a  policy  of  concession  authorizing  taxa- 
tion by  colony  grant ;  and 

Phase  IV:  —  A  policy  of  concession  authorizing  taxation 
by  colony  grant  would  restore  peace. 

Use  of  Points  Discovered  by  Means  of  the  Phase-System. 
—  Points  in  a  case  discovered  by  means  of  the  Phase-System 
will  always  constitute  important  heads  in  chains  of  reason- 
ing to  support  or  overthrow  a  proposition  of  policy.  When- 
ever these  points  express  truths  that  cannot  be  accepted  as 
evidence  on  the  authority  of  common  knowledge,  they  should 
in  turn  be  investigated  for  proof  until  they  rest  on  chains  of 
reasoning *  that  are  based  eventually  on  acceptable  evidence.2 

Each  one  of  these  points,  it  will  be  noted,  represents  a 
proposition  of  fact,  and  should  be  investigated  by  the 
method  suggested  for  surveying  the  proof  under  such  prop- 
ositions. 

(B)    The  Negative's  Main  Constructive  Rebuttal 

The  Negative's  Main  Constructive  Rebuttal.  —  The  Neg- 
ative's Main  Constructive  Rebuttal  consists  of  Phases  V  to 
VII  as  given  in  the  full  outline  of  Phases  on  pages 
154-156.  These  Phases,  as  they  would  be  worded  for  the 
Negative,  are : 

Phase  V:  —  The  proposed  policy  would  result  in  alleged 

new  evils ;   and 
Phase  VI:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  really  be  evils ; 

and 


1  See  pages  30-33. 

2  See  pages  49-52,  61-62. 


166  Building  the  Case 

Phase  VII:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  be  worse  than 
existing  or  threatened  evils. 

This  subdivision  of  the  complete  case  is  called  the  Nega- 
tive's Main  Constructive  Rebuttal :  first,  because  these 
three  Phases  of  proof  constitute  a  part  of  the  Main  Case; 
second,  because  on  these  three  Phases  the  Negative  is  under 
obligation  to  advance  constructive  proof ;  and  third,  because 
these  three  Phases  represent  proof  offered  by  the  Negative 
to  rebut,  i.e.,  to  answer,  the  Affirmative's  contentions  on 
Phases  I  to  IV. 

If  the  Negative  undertakes  to  present  proof  under  Phase 
V,  it  must  stand  ready  to  carry  this  proof  on  through  Phases 
VI  and  VII ;  although,  in  some  cases,  no  proof  under  these 
two  latter  Phases  will  be  demanded,  because  the  truth  of 
points  developed  from  Phases  VI  and  VII  may  in  some  cases 
be  admitted  as  self-evident.  The  shrewd  Negative  debater, 
however,  will  not  neglect  in  any  case  to  test  the  possibili- 
ties of  proof  for  and  against  him  on  all  three  of  these 
Phases. 

The  Affirmative  may  either  admit  the  Negative's  proof 
under  one  or  two  of  these  three  Phases  and  attack  the  Nega- 
tive's proof  under  the  remaining  Phases ;  or  it  may  attack 
the  Negative's  proof  under  all  three  of  these  Phases.  In 
order  to  establish  its  case,  however,  the  Affirmative  must 
succeed  in  overthrowing  the  Negative's  proof  under,  at  least, 
one  of  these  Phases. 

When  the  Affirmative  "undertakes  to  refute  the  position  of 
the  Negative  on  each  of  these  three  Phases,  it  will  express 
these  Phases  as  follows : 

Phase  V:  —  The  proposed  policy  would  not  result  in  the 
alleged  new  evils ;  and 


Surveying  the  Proof  167 

Phase  VI:  —  Even  if  the  proposed  policy  should  result 
in  the  alleged  new  evils,  these  alleged  evils  would 
not  really  be  evils  ;   and 

Phase  VII:  —  Even  if  the  proposed  policy  should  result 
in  the  alleged  new  evils;  and  even  if  these  alleged 
evils  should  really  be  evils ;  even  then  these  evils  re- 
sulting from  the  proposed  policy  would  not  be  so  bad 
as,  or  worse  than,  existing  or  threatened  evils. 

Application  of  the  Phase-System  in  Building  the  Nega- 
tive's Main  Constructive  Rebuttal.  —  The  practical  appli- 
cation of  the  Phase-System  in  building  the  Negative's  Main 
Constructive  Rebuttal  may  be  seen  in  the  following  brief- 
outline  presenting  part  of  the  actual  case  used  against  Burke 
in  his  plea  for  Conciliation.  In  this  outline,  it  will  be  noted 
that  each  of  the  Phases  from  V  to  VII  has  suggested  an 
actual  point  in  the  case. 

I.    [Proposition]  England  should  not  adopt  Burke's  policy 
of  conciliation  wTith  the  American  colonies ;  for 

[Actual  Points  in  the  Proof] 
A.   Burke's  policy  would  introduce  new  and  worse  evils; 

for 

Phase  V:  —  Burke's  policy  would  result  in  a  loss  of 
revenue  from  America ;  and 

Phase  VI:  —  A  loss  of  revenue  from  America  would 
mean  a  heavier  burden  of  taxation  on  England ; 
and 

Phase  VII:  —  A  heavier  burden  of  taxation  on  Eng- 
land would  be  worse  than  tumults  and  disorders 
in  America. 

Diagram  Showing  the  Negative's  Main  Constructive 
Rebuttal.  —  The  following  diagram  representing  Phases  I 


168 


Building  the  Case 


to  VII  shows  in  the  last  three  Phases  the  Negative's  Main 
Constructive  Rebuttal : 

Diagram  II 
(Showing  Possibilities  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  VII) 


Existing  or^"* 
Threatened  Evils 
f  PHRASE  I 

W 


PHASEVII 

0*»-*-**P  (Comparison)      "*""*«• 

Removal  or  Diminution  of 
Existing  or  Threatened  Evils 


Obviously 
**Real  Evil 


PHASE  III 


Alleged 
New  Evil 


Defects  in 
Present  Policy 


Essentials  of 
Proposed  Policy 


In  this  diagram,  an  alleged  new  evil,  spoken  of  in  Phase 
V,  is  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  in  the  middle  of  the 
oblique  line  to  the  right.  The  obviously  real  evil,  spoken  of 
in  Phase  VI,  is  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  end  of 
the  oblique  line  to  the  right. 

Phases  V  and  VI  are  represented  by  straight  lines  ex- 
tending obliquely  upward  and  ending  in  arrow-heads. 
These  straight  lines  with  arrow-heads  are  intended  to  show 
a  cause-and-effect  relationship  between  the  things  at  their 
extremities  —  the  thing  at  the  base  being  the  cause,  and  the 
thing  at  the  top  being  the  effect. 

Phase  VII  is  represented  by  a  curved  broken  line  connect- 
ing the  obviously  real  evil  resulting  from  the  proposed  policy 
with  the  existing  or  threatened  evil,  spoken  of  in  Phases  I 
and  II  as  resulting  from  the  defects  in  the  present  policy. 
The  curved  broken  line  is  used  to  indicate  a  relationship  by 
comparison  between  the  things  at  its  extremities. 


Surveying  the  Proof 


169 


If  this  diagram  were  filled  in  to  represent  the  first  seven 
Phases  of  Burke's  case  on  the  proposition  that  England 
should  adopt  his  policy  of  conciliation  with  the  American  col- 
onies, it  would  appear  as  follows : 

Diagram  II 
(Showing  Actual  Points  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  VII) 


PHASE  VII 

Tumults            ^""* 

Restoration 

""•k  Heavier  Burden 

and  Disorders 

of  Peace 

^^of  Taxation 

in  America 

in  America 

on>England 

i 
- 

;  PHASE  I 

1 

m 

W 

3 

CO 

< 

j^> 

>^Loss  of  Revenue 

Pd 

phase  m 

from  America 

Coerc 

ion  to 

Conc< 

jssion 

Enforce  Taxation 

Authorizing-  Taxation 

by  Pe 

irliament 

by  Colo 

ly  Grant 

Process  of  Filling  in  a  Diagram  for  the  Negative's  Main 
Constructive  Rebuttal.  —  The  process  of  filling  in  a  diagram 
for  the  Negative's  Main  Constructive  Rebuttal  is  compara- 
tively simple ;  for  it  requires  the  placing  of  specific  material 
at  only  two  points  —  the  first  point  representing  an  alleged 
new  evil  that  would  result  from  the  proposed  policy,  and  the 
second  representing  a  perfectly  obvious  evil  that  would  grow 
out  of,  or  result  from,  the  alleged  new  evil.  These  two 
points  on  the  diagram  should  always  be  filled  in  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Negative. 

The  alleged  new  evil  spoken  of  in  Phase  V,  and  the  really 
obvious  evil  spoken  of  in  Phase  VI,  are  sometimes  discov- 
ered by  applying  harsh  names  or  disagreeable  epithets  to  the 
proposed  policy  or  to  its  immediate  effects. 

To  illustrate :  Many  attacks  are  made  on  proposed  pol- 
icies by  calling  them  un-American,  undemocratic,  socialistic, 


170  Building  the  Case 

revolutionary ,  etc.  These  attacks,  when  diagrammed,  would 
be  placed  under  Phase  V;  because,  in  effect,  they  affirm 
that  the  proposed  policy  would  bring  about  a  new  condition 
that  is  un-American,  undemocratic,  etc. 

One  of  the  most  common  replies  on  the  part  of  the  Affirm- 
ative to  such  attacks  as  those  mentioned  above  is :  We 
admit  that  the  policy  is  un-American,  undemocratic,  etc.;  but 
what  of  itf  To  provide  an  answer  for  this  question,  the 
Negative  then  must  show  the  really  obvious  evil  that  grows 
out  of,  or  results  from,  this  un-American,  undemocratic, 
socialistic,  or  revolutionary  condition.  This  really  obvious 
evil  would  be  diagrammed  under  Phase  VI. 

The  only  caution  to  be  observed  in  filling  in  this  diagram 
is  that  the  point  in  Phase  V  should  represent  an  evil  entirely 
different  in  nature  from  the  evil  given  in  Phase  I;  for,  if 
these  two  evils  are  the  same  in  nature,  the  constructive  proof 
for  the  Negative  of  Phase  V  will  be  the  same  as  the  refuta- 
tion for  the  Negative  of  Phase  IV. 

To  illustrate :  If,  in  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation,  dia- 
grammed on  page  169,  the  evil  mentioned  in  Phase  V  were 
the  same  as  the  evil  mentioned  in  Phase  I,  namely,  — 
Tumults  and  Disorders  in  America;  then  the  Negative 
constructive  proof  on  Phase  V  would  be  the  same  as  the 
Negative  destructive  proof  for  Phase  IV;  for  on  Phase  V 
the  Negative  would  contend  that  Burke's  policy  would  pro- 
duce tumults  and  disorders  in  America;  and  on  Phase  IV 
the  Negative  would  contend  that  Burke's  policy  would 
not  restore  peace  in  America,  because  it  would  do  the  ex- 
act opposite  —  it  would  produce  additional  tumults  and  dis- 
orders in  America. 

Typical  Main  Cases  for  the  Negative  Discovered  from  the 
Diagram  for  Phases  I  to  VII.  —  A  study  of  the  diagram  for 


Surveying  the  Proof  171 

Phases  I  to  VII  will  reveal  four  different  types  of  cases  avail- 
able for  the  Negative,  any  one  of  which  the  Affirmative 
must  be  prepared  to  meet.     These  four  typical  cases  are : 

First:  The  Negative  may  undertake  to  disprove  just  one 
of  the  points  raised  by  the  Affirmative  under  the  first  four 
Phases ;  and,  if  the  Negative  succeeds  in  overthrowing  this 
one  point,  logically  it  will  win  its  case. 

Second:  The  Negative  may  undertake  to  disprove  succes- 
sively the  various  points  raised  by  the  Affirmative  under  the 
first  four  Phases ;  and,  if  the  Negative  succeeds  in  its  effort 
to  overthrow  any  one  of  these  points,  it  will  win  its  case. 

Third:  The  Negative  may  contend :  (1)  through  Phases 
I  and  II,  that  no  change  in  policy  is  necessary;  or, 
(2)  through  Phases  III  and  IV,  that  the  proposed  policy 
would  not  produce  the  specified  benefits ;  and,  then,  in  ad- 
dition, (3)  through  Phases  V  and  VI,  that  the  proposed 
policy  would  introduce  new  evils. 

Fourth:  The  Negative  may  admit  under  Phase  IV  that 
the  proposed  policy  would  produce  benefits,  but  contend 
under  Phases  V  to  VII  that  it  would  introduce  new  evils  as 
bad  as,  or  worse  than,  the  evils  removed  or  diminished. 

(C)    The  Negative's  Constructive  Substitute  Case 

The  Negative's  Constructive  Substitute  Case.  —  The 
Negative's  Constructive  Substitute  Case  under  a  proposi- 
tion of  policy  consists  of  Phases  VIII  to  XI  as  given  in 
the  full  outline  of  Phases  on  pages  154-156.  These  Phases, 
as  they  would  be  worded  for  the  Negative,  are : 

Phase  VIII: — The  substitute  policy  makes  material 
changes  from  the  present  policy ;  and 

Phase  IX :  —  The  substitute  policy  is  materially  differ- 
ent from  the  proposed  policy ;  and 


172  Building  the  Case 

Phase  X:  —  The  substitute  policy  would  remove  or  di- 
minish existing  or  threatened  evils ;  or 

Phase  XI: — The  substitute  policy  would  remove  or  dimin- 
ish existing  or  threatened  evils  more  effectually  than 
the  proposed  policy. 

This  subdivision  of  the  complete  case  is  called  the  Nega- 
tive's Constructive  Substitute  Case :  first,  because  these 
four  Phases  of  proof  constitute  a  part  of  the  Substitute  Case ; 
and,  second,  because  on  these  four  Phases  the  Negative  is 
under  obligation  to  advance  constructive  proof. 

In  this  part  of  the  case  as  a  whole,  the  Negative  must  take 
the  initiative.  It  introduces  a  substitute  case  on  the  theory 
that  this  substitute  case  would  prove  more  satisfactory  than 
the  case  proposed  by  the  Affirmative.  Oh  the  Phases  pre- 
sented here,  the  Negative  has  a  clear  burden  of  proof.  It 
cannot  be  content,  therefore,  with  the  mere  naming  of  a 
substitute  policy;  but  it  must  prove  conclusively  that 
the  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
the  proposed  policy.  If  the  Negative  cannot  establish 
its  contention  under  Phases  VIII  and  IX,  and  under  Phase 
X  or  Phase  XI,  it  cannot  hope  to  establish  its  substitute 
case. 

To  meet  a  substitute  case  advanced  by  the  Negative,  the 
Affirmative  may  adopt  any  one  of  four  different  modes  of 
defense : 

First :  The  Affirmative  may  admit  all  the  proof  advanced 
by  the  Negative  under  Phases  VIII  to  XI,  and  build  up  its 
defense  around  Phases  XII  to  XV,  as  these  Phases  are  out- 
lined on  pages  155-156. 

Second:  The  Affirmative  may  admit  the  Negative's  proof 
under  Phases  VIII  and  IX,  and  attack  the  proof  advanced 
by  the  Negative  under  Phase  X  or  Phase  XI. 


Surveying  the  Proof  173 

Third:  The  Affirmative  may  simply  attack  the  Negative's 
proof  under  either  Phase  VIII  or  Phase  IX. 

Fourth:  The  Affirmative  may  combine  an  attack  on  the 
Negative's  proof  under  either  Phase  VIII  or  Phase  IX,  with 
an  attack  on  the  proof  advanced  by  the  Negative  under 
Phase  X  or  Phase  XL 

Application  of  the  Phase-System  in  Building  the  Nega- 
tive's Constructive  Substitute  Case.  —  The  practical  appli- 
cation of  the  Phase-System  in  building  the  Negative's  Con- 
structive Substitute  Case  may  be  seen  in  the  following  brief- 
outline  presenting  a  part  of  the  actual  case  used  against 
Burke  in  his  plea  for  Conciliation.  In  this  outline  it  will  be 
noted  that  each  of  the  Phases  from  VIII  to  XI  has  suggested 
an  actual  point  in  the  case. 

I.    [Proposition]   England  should  not  adopt  Burke's  policy 
of  conciliation  with  the  American  colonies ;  for 

[Actual  Points  in  the  Proof] 

A.   Lord  North's  compromise  plan  would  be  more  satis- 
factory than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  ;  for 
1.    Lord  North's  plan  would  be  more  beneficial  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 
Phase  VIII:  —  Lord    North's  compromise   plan 
differs  from  the  present  policy  in  that  it  does 
not  coerce  the  colonies  to  enforce  taxation  by 
Parliament,  but  authorizes  Parliament  to  fix 
a  total  sum  for  the  colonies  to  contribute  by 
quotas,  which  may  be  raised  in  any  way  the 
colonies  may  choose ;  and 
Phase  IX:  —  Lord     North's     compromise     plan 
differs  from  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  in 
that  it  does  not  concede  all  that  the  colonies 


174 


Building  the  Case 


demand  concerning  non-interference  by  Parlia- 
ment in  taxing  them  without  representation; 
and 

Phase  X:  —  Lord  North's  compromise  plan  will 
restore  peace ;  or 

Phase  XI:  —  Lord  North's  compromise  plan  will 
restore  peace  more  effectually  than  Burke's 
policy  of  conciliation. 

Diagram  Showing  the  Negative's  Constructive  Substitute 
Case.  —  The  following  diagram  representing  Phases  I  to  XI 
shows  in  the  last  four  Phases  the  Negative's  Constructive 
Substitute  Case : 

Diagram  III 
(Showing  Possibilities  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  XI) 


PHASE  VII 


PHASE  XI 


^*»  "Removal  or  Dim!hu£joI^',"-"" 
Existing  orx**  of  Existin^or"  ^%  Obviously- 


Threatened  Evils 
!  ^PHASE  I 


Threatened  Evils 


*Real  Evil 


PHASE  III 


"Removal  or  Diminution 

**b£  Existing  or 

Threa£ei\ed  Evils 


New  Evil 


PHASE  IX 


Defects  ih*«..#> 
Present  Policy"* • 


Essentials  of 
. .  Proposed  Policy 


^..Essentials  of 
•  Substitute  Policy 


PHASE  VIII 


In  this  diagram,  the  same  beneficial  effect  that  is  predicted 
from  the  proposed  policy :  namely,  —  The  Removal  or  Dim- 
inution of  Existing  or  Threatened  Evils  is  represented  by 
the  heavy  dot  at  the  top  of  the  vertical  line  to  the  right. 
The  essential  parts  of  the  substitute  policy  are  represented 
by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  base  of  the  vertical  line  to  the  right. 

Phase  VIII  is  represented  by  a  dotted  line  connecting  the 
essential  parts  of  the  substitute  policy  with  the  defects  in 


Surveying  the  Proof 


175 


the  present  policy ;  and  Phase  IX  is  represented  by  a  dotted 
line  connecting  the  essential  parts  of  the  substitute  policy 
with  the  essential  parts  of  the  proposed  policy.  These 
dotted  lines  indicate  a  relationship  of  essential  difference 
between  the  things  at  their  extremities. 

Phase  X  is  represented  by  a  vertical  line  with  an  arrow- 
head at  its  top  to  indicate  a  cause-and-effect  relationship  be- 
tween the  things  at  its  extremities  —  the  thing  at  the  base 
being  the  cause,  and  the  thing  at  the  top  being  the  effect. 

Phase  XI  is  represented  by  a  curved  broken  line  connect- 
ing the  beneficial  effect  predicted  by  the  Negative  for  the 
substitute  policy  and  the  beneficial  effect  predicted  by  the 
Affirmative  for  the  proposed  policy.  This  curved  broken 
line  is  used  to  indicate  a  relationship  by  comparison  between 
the  two  things  at  its  extremities ;  and,  since  these  two  things 
are  the*  same,  this  relationship  by  comparison  must  be  one 
of  degree. 

If  this  diagram  were  filled  in  to  represent  the  first  eleven 
Phases  of  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation  with  the  American 
Colonies,  it  would  appear  as  follows  : 

Diagram  III 
(Showing  Actual  Points  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  XI) 


PHASE  VII 


PHASE  XI 


Tumults 
and  Disorders' 
in  America 


^,0**"*"    Restoration*""^»r^*" Heavier  Burden**"*..^ 

nf  Poo/io      ^*  '"'^nf  TavotinTi  *^* 


Restoration 
,        of  Peace 
inJ^merica 
> 


Coercion*  to#  Concession 

Enforce  Taxation   Authorizing  Taxation 
by  Parliament   * "•  ••  .by  Colony  Grant 


.Compromise 
Authorizing  Taxation 
••••**  by  Quotas 


PHASE  VIII 


176  Building  the  Case 

Process  of  Filling  in  a  Diagram  for  the  Negative's  Con- 
structive Substitute  Case.  —  The  process  of  filling  in  a  dia- 
gram for  the  Negative's  Constructive  Substitute  Case  is  a 
very  simple  matter  after  a  satisfactory  substitute  policy  has 
been  discovered ;  for  it  requires  the  placing  of  specific  ma- 
terial at  only  two  points :  namely,  at  the  top  and  at  the  base 
of  the  line  representing  Phase  X. 

Because  no  policy  can  be  thought  of  as  a  substitute  for 
another  policy  unless  it  is  intended  to  accomplish  the  same 
purpose,  the  beneficial  effect  predicted  by  the  Negative  for 
the  substitute  policy  must  be  the  same  as  the  beneficial  effect 
predicted  by  the  Affirmative  for  the  proposed  policy.  The 
term  to  be  placed  at  the  top  of  the  line  representing  Phase  X 
should  always  be,  therefore,  the  same  term  that  is  placed  at 
the  top  of  the  line  representing  Phase  IV. 

It  is  a  simple  matter  to  discover  the  term  to  be  placed  at 
the  top  of  the  line  representing  Phase  X,  but  a  much  more 
difficult  matter  to  discover  a  satisfactory  policy  to  be  out- 
lined at  the  base  of  the  line  representing  Phase  X ;  because 
a  satisfactory  substitute  policy  must  meet  all  of  the  follow- 
ing requirements : 

1.  The  substitute  policy  must  serve  the  same  purpose  as 

the  proposed  policy. 

2.  It  must  be  essentially  different  from  both  the  present 

policy  and  the  proposed  policy. 

3.  It  must  be  incapable  of  being  used  merely  to  supple- 

ment the  proposed  policy. 

The  reason  for  this  first  requirement  has  already  been  ex- 
plained. The  reason  for  the  second  requirement  is  that,  if 
the  substitute  policy  is  not  different  from  the  present  policy, 
it  will  produce  the  same  evils  which  it  is  intended  to  remedy ; 
and,  if  it  is  not  different  from  the  proposed  policy,  it  cannot 


Surveying  the  Proof  177 

be  accepted  in  preference  to  the  proposed  policy.  If,  in 
fact,  the  substitute  policy  is  the  same  essentially  as  the  pro- 
posed policy,  the  Negative  will  simply  argue  the  Affirmative's 
case  for  the  Affirmative.  The  reason  for  the  third  require- 
ment is  to  prevent  the  Affirmative  from  rebutting  the  Nega- 
tive's substitute  case  by  saying :  "  We  have  no  objection  to 
the  proposal  advanced  by  the  Negative ;  for  we  believe  that 
their  proposal  and  our  proposal  are  only  parts  of  a  larger  policy 
to  accomplish  the  same  great  end.  Both  proposals  are 
desirable;  and,  therefore,  we  suggest  that  the  Negative's 
proposal  should  be  adopted  in  addition  to,  but  not  in  substi- 
tution for,  the  policy  advanced  by  the  Affirmative."  To 
prevent  such  an  answer  to  the  Negative's  substitute  case, 
the  Negative  should  be  careful  to  frame  its  substitute  policy 
so  that  it  is  incapable  of  being  used  merely  to  supplement 
the  proposed  policy. 

A  satisfactory  substitute  policy  is  generally  discovered 
either  ready-made,  or  by  tracing  the  existing  or  threatened 
evils  to  other  causes  than  those  set  forth  by  the  Affirmative 
in  Phase  II.  Such  a  policy  may  consist  in  an  entirely  new 
scheme,  or  it  may  be  an  amended  form  either  of  the  present 
policy  or  of  the  proposed  policy. 

The  Negative  needs  to  fill  in  this  diagram  for  only  one 
substitute  policy  —  the  one  which  it  believes  is  most  satis- 
factory; but  the  Affirmative  should  fill  in  this  diagram  for 
all  substitute  policies  that  could  be  used  against  it. 

(D)    The  Affirmative's  Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the 
Substitute  Case 

The  Affirmative's  Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the  Substi- 
tute Case.  —  The  Affirmative's  Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the 
Substitute  Case  consists  of  Phases  XII  to  XV  as  given  on 
pages  155-156.     These  Phases  are  ; 


178  Building  the  Case 

Phase  XII:  —  Any  substitute  policy  would  result  in  new 

evils;  and 
Phase  XIII: — -The   alleged   new   evils   would    really   be 

evils;  and 
Phase  XIV:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  be  worse  than 

existing  or  threatened  evils ;  and 
Phase  XV:  —  The  alleged  new  evils  would  be  worse  than 

the  evils  ascribed  to  the  proposed  policy. 

This  subdivision  of  the  complete  case  is  called  the  Affirm- 
ative's Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the  Substitute  Case: 
first,  because  these  four  Phases  of  proof  constitute  a  part  of 
the  complete  case  that  is  concerned  with  the  Negative's 
substitute  proposal ;  second,  because  on  these  four  Phases 
the  Affirmative  is  under  obligation  to  advance  construc- 
tive proof;  and  third,  because  these  four  Phases  represent 
proof  offered  by  the  Affirmative  as  a  rejoinder,  i.e.,  in 
answer  to  an  answer.  These  four  Phases  constitute  a 
rejoinder,  because  they  are  used  in  answer  to  the  Nega- 
tive's Constructive  Substitute  Case,  which  in  turn  con- 
stitutes an  answer  to  the  Affirmative's  Main  Constructive 
Case. 

If  the  Affirmative  undertakes  to  present  proof  under  Phase 
XII,  it  must  stand  ready  to  carry  this  proof  on  through 
either  Phase  XIV,  or  Phase  XV ;  although  in  some  cases  no 
proof  under  Phases  XIII,  XIV,  and  XV  will  be  demanded, 
because  the  truth  of  points  developed  from  these  Phases 
may  in  some  cases  be  admitted  as  self-evident.  The  shrewd 
Affirmative  debater,  however,  will  not  neglect  in  any  case 
to  test  the  possibilities  of  proof  for  and  against  him  on  all 
four  of  these  Phases. 

The  Negative  may  either  admit  the  Affirmative's  proof 
under  Phase  XII  or  Phase  XIII  and  attack  the  Affirmative's 


Surveying  the  Proof  179 

proof  under  the  remaining  Phases;  or  it  may  attack  the 
Affirmative's  proof  under  all  four  of  these  Phases.  In  order 
to  establish  its  substitute  case,  however,  the  Negative  must 
succeed  in  overthrowing  the  Affirmative's  proof  under  at 
least  one  of  these  Phases. 

When  the  Negative  undertakes  to  refute  the  position  of 
the  Affirmative  on  each  of  these  four  Phases,  it  will  express 
these  Phases  as  follows  : 

Phase  XII:  —  The  substitute  policy  would  not  result  in 
the  alleged  new  evils  ;  and 

Phase  XIII: — Even  if  the  substitute  policy  should  re- 
sult in  the  alleged  new  evils ;  these  alleged  evils  would 
not  really  be  evils ;  and 

Phase  XIV: — Even  if  the  substitute  policy  should  re- 
sult in  the  alleged  new  evils  ;  and  even  if  these  alleged 
new  evils  should  really  be  evils ;  even  then  these  evils 
resulting  from  the  substitute  policy  would  not  be  so 
bad  as,  or  worse  than,  existing  or  threatened  evils ;  and 

Phase  XV:  —  The  evils  resulting  from  the  substitute 
policy  would  certainly  not  be  so  bad  as,  or  worse  than, 
the  evils  that  would  result  from  the  proposed  policy. 

Application  of  the  Phase-System  in  Building  the  Affirma- 
tive's Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the  Substitute  Case. — The 
practical  application  of  the  Phase-System  in  building  the 
Affirmative's  Constructive  Rejoinder  to  the  Substitute  Case 
may  be  seen  in  the  following  brief-outline  presenting  part  of 
the  actual  case  used  by  Burke  in  upholding  the  proposi- 
tion that  England  should  adopt  his  policy  of  conciliation 
with  the  American  colonies. 

In  this  brief-outline,  it  will  be  noted  that  each  of  the  Phases 
from  XII  to  XV  has  suggested  an  actual  point  in  the  case. 


180  Building  the  Case 

I.    [Proposition]   England   should  adopt  Burke's  policy  of 
conciliation  with  the  American  colonies ;  for 
[Actual  Points  in  the  Proof] 
A.   No  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 

1 

2.  Any  substitute  policy  would  introduce  new  and 
worse  evils ;  for 

Phase  XII: —  Lord  North's  compromise  plan,  for 
example,    would    introduce    the   principle    of 
taxation  by  the  ministry  rather  than  by  Par- 
liament; and 
Phase  XIII: — Taxation    by  the   ministry  would 
soon  extinguish  British  liberty  in  England  ;  and 
Phase XIV: — The   extinction  of    British   liberty 
in  England  would  be  worse  than  tumults  and 
disorders  in  America ;   and 
Phase  XV:  —  The  extinction   of    British   liberty 
in   England   would   be  worse   than  a  heavier 
burden  of  taxation  on  England. 

Diagram  Showing  the  Affirmative's  Constructive  Re- 
joinder to  the  Substitute  Case.  —  Diagram  IV  appearing 
on  the  page  opposite  represents  Phases  I  to  XV  and  shows 
in  the  last  four  Phases  the  Affirmative's  Constructive  Re- 
joinder to  the  Substitute  Case. 

In  this  diagram  an  alleged  new  evil,  spoken  of  in  Phase 
XII,  is  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  in  the  middle  of  the 
oblique  line  to  the  right.  The  obviously  real  evil,  spoken  of 
in  Phase  XIII,  is  represented  by  the  heavy  dot  at  the  end 
of  the  oblique  line  to  the  right. 

Phases  XII  and  XIII  are  represented  by  straight  lines 
extending   obliquely   upward   and   ending   in   arrow-heads. 


Surveying  the  Proof 


181 


These  straight  lines  with  arrow-heads  are  intended  to  show 
a  cause-and-effect  relationship  between  the  things  at  their 
extremities  —  the  thing  at  the  base  being  the  cause,  and  the 
thing  at  the  top  being  the  effect. 

Phase  XIV  is  represented  by  a  curved  broken  line  con- 
necting the  obviously  real  evil  resulting  from  the  substitute 
policy  with  the  existing  or  threatened  evil,  spoken  of  in 
Phases  I  and  II  as  resulting  from  the  defects  in  the  present 
policy.  Phase  XV  is  represented  by  a  curved  broken  line 
connecting  the  obviously  real  evil  resulting  from  the  sub- 
stitute policy  with  the  obviously  real  evil  alleged  to  result 
from  the  proposed  policy.  These  curved  broken  lines  are 
used  to  indicate  a  relationship  by  comparison  between  the 
things  at  their  extremities. 

Diagram  IV 
(Showing  Possibilities  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  XV) 


+  +    PHASE  VII 

**^^  *"Removal  or  Diminuti< 
Existing^"  of  Existing.or  ""' 

Threatened  Evils      Threatened  Evils 
j  >HASE  I 


PHASE  XV 
»» "^Removal 


Defects  in 
Present  Policy 


moval  or  Diminution^  *»  X^ 
"^o^Existing  or  **>Qbviou3ly 

Threatened  Evils  Real  Evil 


Essentials  of 
Substitute  Policy 


If  this  diagram  were  rilled  in  to  represent  all  the  fifteen 
Phases  of  Burke's  case  on  the  proposition  that  England  should 
adopt  his  policy  of  conciliation  with  the  American  colonies,  it 
would  appear  as  follows : 


182  Building  the  Case 

Diagram  IV 
(Showing  Actual  Points  of  Proof  in  Phases  I  to  XV) 


•*«»N  Extinction 
*of  Liberty 
in  England 


Taxation  by 

the  Ministry 


Coercion  to  Concession 

Enforce  Taxation  Authorizing  Taxation 
by  Parliament.  by  Colony  Grant 


Compromise 
Authorizing  Taxation 
.•*  by  Quotas 


Process  of  Filling  in  a  Diagram  for  the  Affirmative's  Con- 
structive Rejoinder  to  the  Substitute  Case.  —  The  process 
of  filling  in  a  diagram  for  the  Affirmative's  Constructive 
Rejoinder  to  the  Substitute  Case  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
process  of  filling  in  a  diagram  for  the  Negative's  Main  Con- 
structive Rebuttal.  In  this  part  of  the  case,  however,  the 
points  on  the  diagram  must  be  filled  in  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Affirmative  rather  than  the  Negative. 

The  only  caution  to  be  observed  in  filling  in  this  diagram 
is  that  the  point  in  Phase  XII  should  represent  an  evil  en- 
tirely different  in  nature  from  the  evil  given  in  Phase  I ;  for, 
if  these  two  evils  are  the  same  in  nature,  the  constructive 
proof  for  the  Affirmative  on  Phase  XII  will  be  the  same  as 
the  refutation  for  the  Affirmative  on  Phase  X. 

The  alleged  new  evil  in  Phase  XII  may  be  the  same,  how- 
ever, as  the  alleged  new  evil  in  Phase  V ;  and,  likewise,  the 
obviously  real  evil  mentioned  in  Phase  XIII  may  be  the 
same  as  the  obviously  real  evil  mentioned  in  Phase  VI. 
When  this  is  the  case,  a  comparison  between  these  evils 


Surveying  the  Proof  183 

in  Phase   XV   will   naturally   be  a  comparison   in  degree 
only. 

Typical  Cases  for  the  Negative  Discovered  from  the  Dia- 
gram for  Phases  I  to  XV.  —  A  number  of  typical  cases  availa- 
ble for  the  Negative  under  a  proposition  of  policy  has  already 
been  given  (see  pp.  170-171)  with  a  statement  that  the  Affirm- 
ative must  be  ready  to  meet  any  one  of  them.  This  list  of 
available  cases  for  the  Negative  involved,  however,  only  a 
consideration  of  Phases  I  to  VII  in  the  proof  for  a  proposi- 
tion of  policy.  When  the  complete  set  of  Phases  from  I  to 
XV  is  considered,  then  the  list  of  available  cases  for  the 
Negative  is  expanded  as  follows : 

First:  The  Negative  may  undertake  to  disprove  just  one 
of  the  points  raised  by  the  Affirmative  under  the  first  four 
Phases. 

Second:  The  Negative  may  undertake  to  disprove  succes- 
sively the  various  points  raised  by  the  Affirmative  under 
the  first  four  Phases,  and  let  its  case  rest  there. 

Third:  The  Negative  may  contend:  (1)  through  Phases 
I  and  II,   that    no    change    in    policy    is    necessary;     or 

(2)  through  Phases  III  and  IV,  that  the  proposed  policy  would 
not  produce  the  specified  benefits;    and  then,  in  addition, 

(3)  through  Phases  V  and  VI,  that  the  proposed  policy  would 
introduce  new  evils. 

Fourth:  The  Negative  may  admit  under  Phase  IV  that 
the  proposed  policy  would  produce  benefits,  but  contend 
under  Phases  V  to  VII,  that  it  would  introduce  new  evils  as 
bad  as,  or  worse  than,  the  evils  removed  or  diminished. 

Fifth:  The  Negative  may  admit  all  the  proof  advanced  by 
the  Affirmative  under  Phases  I,  III,  and  IV,  and  attack  the 
position  of  the  Affirmative  on  Phases  II,  VIII,  IX,  X,  and 
XL 


184  Building  the  Case 

Sixth:  The  Negative  may  admit  all  the  proof  advanced 
by  the  Affirmative  under  Phases  I,  III,  and  IV,  and  attack 
the  position  of  the  Affirmative  on  Phases  II,  V,  VI,  VII,  VIII, 
IX,  X,  and  XL 

Seventh:  The  Negative  may  attack  the  position  of  the 
Affirmative  on  every  Phase  from  I  to  XI. 

All  these  typical  cases  for  the  Negative  are  important, 
of  course,  for  a  Negative  debater  to  consider ;  but  they  are 
also  no  less  important  for  the  consideration  of  an  Affirmative 
debater;  because  an  Affirmative  debater  must  be  prepared 
to  meet  any  one  of  them. 

Summary  of  Surveying  the  Proof.  —  Under  the  general  pro- 
cess of  surveying  the  proof,  methods  have  been  considered 
for  laying  out  all  the  logical  possibilities  of  proof  that  might 
be  used  to  support  or  overthrow  a  proposition.  These 
methods  constitute  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of  the 
theory  of  building  a  case ;  for,  without  them,  a  debater  can 
never  be  sure  that  his  case  includes  all  the  proof  that  must  be 
present  to  support  his  proposition.  The  debater,  therefore, 
should  be  familiar  with  all  the  different  points  in  a  survey  of 
the  proof  both  for  a  proposition  of  fact  and  for  a  proposition 
of  policy. 


CHAPTER  III 
FINDING   THE   ISSUES1 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  After  defining  the  terms  of  a 
proposition  and  surveying  the  proof  under  it,  a  debater  is 
then  ready  to  undertake  the  third  step  in  building  a  case, 
which  is  to  find  the  issues. 

By  this  step,  he  selects  from  the  many  suggested  points 
of  proof  those  points  that  he  himself  must  make  firm  as 
supports  for  his  proposition ;  and  he  separates  these  points 
from  other  points  that  in  no  way  affect  his  proposition,  and 
from  other  points  still  that  are  already  firmly  established 
under  his  proposition. 

Definition  of  the  Issues.  —  The  issues  are  those  main 
questions  of  fact  or  theory  arising  in  controversy  upon  the 
settlement  of  which  depends  the  establishment  or  disestab- 
lishment of  a  proposition. 

The  term  issue  derives  its  name  from  the  fact  that  it  is  a 
point  arising  from,  or  growing  out  of,  controversy;  for  ac- 
cording to  its  derivation,  it  means  something  that  has  gone 
or  come  out  from.  If  an  issue  grows  out  of  controversy, 
therefore,  it  is  a  question  that  shows  a  main  point  of  dif- 
ference between  the  beliefs  of  contending  parties. 

In  common  usage  an  issue  is  any  point  on  which  there 
is  a  clash  of  opinion;  but  in  technical  usage  it  means  a 
main  point  in  proof  on  which  there  should  be  a  clash  of  opin- 
ion if  the  alleged  truth  of  a  proposition  is  to  be  finally  settled. 
The  issues,  therefore,  are  not  merely  points  on  which  there 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Finding  the  Issues,  see  Appendix  A. 

185 


186  Building  the  Case 

is  a  clash  of  opinion,  but  main  points  under  a  proposition 
on  which  there  should  be  a  clash  of  opinion. 

Different  Kinds  of  Issues.  —  The  term  issue  is  used  in 
debate  to  denote  three  different  kinds  of  issues :  First,  the 
main  issues;  second,  subordinate  issues;  and  third,  an  ulti- 
mate issue. 

The  main  issues  are  those  main  questions  of  fact  or 
theory  on  the  settlement  of  which  depends  the  establish- 
ment or  disestablishment  of  the  main  proposition. 

Subordinate  issues  are  the  main  questions  of  fact  or  theory 
on  the  settlement  of  which  depends  the  establishment  or 
disestablishment  of  some  subordinate  proposition  appear- 
ing in  the  proof  of  the  main  proposition. 

An  ultimate  issue  is  a  question  of  fact  or  theory,  which, 
in  the  course  of  a  debate,  after  many  parts  of  the  proof  have 
been  eliminated,  turns  out  to  be  a  vital  point  on  which  the 
whole  controversy  must  turn.  An  ultimate  issue  may  con- 
sist of  any  one  of  the  main  or  subordinate  issues,  and  is 
usually  discovered  only  during  the  progress  of  an  actual 
debate,  or  after  many  preliminary  skirmishes. 

Importance  of  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The  process  of  find- 
ing issues  is  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of  the  general 
process  of  building  the  case ;  for  the  main  proposition  must 
be  supported  by  main  points  all  of  which  are  main  issues; 
the  main  points  must  be  supported  by  other  points  all  of 
which  are  subordinate  issues;  and  the  subordinate  points 
must  be  supported  by  other  points  all  of  which  are  still  more 
subordinate  issues,  until  the  whole  case  has  a  basic  founda- 
tion on  evidence.  The  process  of  finding  issues  continues, 
therefore,  throughout  the  whole  general  process  of  building 
the  case,  and  becomes  one  of  the  most  essential  parts  of 
the  art  of  debate. 


Finding  the  Issues  187 

Requirements  for  the  Issues.  —  To  understand  the  pro- 
cess of  finding  the  issues,  the  debater  must  first  understand 
the  requirements  that  every  list  of  issues  must  satisfy. 
These  requirements  are  that  the  issues  must  be : 

1.  Relevant  Points ; 

2.  All-inclusive  Points ; 

3.  Mutually  Exclusive  Points ; 

4.  Points  of  Clash ; 

5.  Points  That  Have  a  Plain  Immediate  Inference  to  the 

Proposition;  and 

6.  Points  That  May  Be  Expressed  as  Direct  Questions. 
The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  relevant  points  signifies 

that  the  issues  should  logically  support  the  proposition 
under  which  they  are  presented ;  and  that  they  should  not 
involve  the  fallacies  of  non-sequitur  or  argument  beside  the 
point.1 

The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  all-inclusive  points 
signifies  that  the  issues  should  be  those  points  through  which 
all  other  points  of  proof  lead  to  a  given  proposition. 

The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  mutually  exclusive 
points  signifies  that  each  of  the  issues  should  be  such  that 
proof  given  in  its  support  is  entirely  distinct  from  proof 
given  in  support  of  another  issue. 

The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  points  of  clash  signifies 
that  the  issues  should  be  points  that  neither  side  can  afford 
to  assume  or  admit  without  proof;  but  should  be  points 
rather  that  provoke  controversy. 

The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  points  that  have  a  plain 
immediate  inference  to  the  proposition  signifies  that  the  issues 
should  be  such  that  no  explanation  or  proof  is  necessary  to 
show  their  effect  in  establishing  or  disestablishing  a  propo- 
sition. 


Seepages  110-119. 


188  Building  the  Case 

The  requirement  that  the  issues  be  points  that  may  be 
expressed  as  direct  questions  signifies  that  the  issues  should 
be  points  that  one  side  may  affirm  and  the  other  side  may 
deny.  If  the  issues  are  expressed  as  direct  questions,  then 
affirmation  and  denial  may  be  made  by  a  simple  Yes  or  No. 

Process  of  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The  process  of  finding 
the  issues  under  any  proposition  consists  of  four  main  steps, 
each  of  which  involves  two  more  definite  steps,  as  outlined 
in  the  following  table : 

I.   Analysis  of  the  Problem 

A.  By  a  Definition  of  Terms ;  and 

B.  By  a  Survey  of  the  Proof. 
II.   Investigation  of  the  Facts 

A.  By  a  Study  of  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Case; 
and 

B.  By  a  Study  of  Both  Sides  of  All  Phases  of  the  Case. 
III.  Exclusion  of  Points  Not  Issues 

A.  By  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  Matter ;  and 

B.  By  Exclusion  of  Admitted  and  Waived  Matter. 
IV.  Selection  of  Points  as  Issues 

A.  By  Selection  of  Points  of  Clash;  and 

B.  By  Selection  of  Points  that  Summarize  Proof. 

Analysis  of  the  Problem  for  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The 
first  main  step  in  finding  the  issues  is  called  an  analysis  of 
the  problem.  This  step  consists  in  breaking  up  the  general 
problem  involved  in  the  proposition  into  its  component 
parts,  so  that  proof  not  connected  with  the  proposition  may 
be  more  easily  detected,  and  so  that  each  part  of  the  proof 
under  the  proposition  may  be  investigated  separately. 

This  step  consists :  First,  in  defining  the  terms  of  the  prop- 
osition ;  and  second,  in  surveying  the  proof  under  the  prop- 
osition. 


Finding  the  Issues  189 

Since  both  these  parts  of  the  first  step  in  finding  the 
issues  have  been  thoroughly  treated  in  the  chapters  on  De- 
fining the  Terms  and  Surveying  the  Proof,1  the  problem  of 
analysis  need  not  be  given  any  further  detailed  considera- 
tion. 

Investigation  of  the  Facts  for  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The 
second  main  step  in  finding  the  issues  is  called  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  facts.  This  step  consists  :  First,  in  a  study  of  the 
origin  and  history  of  the  case ;  and  second,  in  a  study  of 
both  sides  of  all  phases  of  the  case. 

By  means  of  these  two  methods  of  investigation,  the  de- 
bater may  gather  a  vast  quantity  of  material  from  which 
he  will  eventually  select  the  issues  and  from  which  he  will 
continually  revise  his  ideas  concerning  the  main  points  and 
phases  of  the  case. 

Study  of  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Case.  —  In  mak- 
ing a  study  of  the  origin  and  history  of  a  case,  a  debater  is 
constantly  in  danger  of  being  led  astray  from  his  purpose 
of  finding  the  issues,  and  of  allowing  himself  to  read  what 
is  merely  instructive  or  entertaining.  The  debater,  there- 
fore, should  approach  this  study  with  certain  well-defined 
objects  in  mind.  He  should  study  the  origin  and  history 
of  the  case  solely  with  the  object  of  discovering : 

1.  The  occasion  that  has  given  rise  to  the  present  con- 

troversy ; 

2.  The  occasions  that  have  given  rise  to  previous  similar 

controversies ; 

3.  The  importance  that  has  been  attached  to  these  con- 

troversies; and 


1  See  pages  135-145,  146-184. 


190  Building  the  Case 

4.  The  various  conflicting  views  held  by  people  in  con- 
nection with  the  proposition  under  discussion. 

Study  of  Both  Sides  of  All  Phases  of  the  Case.  —  One 
of  the  most  common  mistakes  in  the  way  debaters  under- 
take an  investigation  to  find  the  issues  in  a  case  is  that 
they  confine  their  study  to  only  one  side  of  the  question 
and  to  only  a  limited  number  of  phases  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion. 

If  a  debater  studies  only  one  side  of  a  question,  he  will 
seldom  learn  the  points  of  weakness  in  that  side  and  the 
points  of  strength  in  the  opposing  side;  but,  if  he  studies 
both  sides,  he  will  soon  learn  the  points  of  strength  and  the 
points  of  weakness  on  each  side;  and  he  will,  therefore,  be 
better  able  to  select  the  points  on  which  there  should  be  a 
clash  of  opinion. 

If  the  debater  studies,  also,  only  a  limited  number  of 
phases  of  a  whole  question,  he  is  likely  to  miss  the  ultimate 
issue  on  which  the  controversy  will  be  finally  settled ;  but, 
if  he  studies  both  sides  of  all  phases  of  a  case,  he  must  dis- 
cover in  advance  of  the  actual  debate  every  point  that  may 
be  used  as  an  issue. 

Exclusion  of  Points  Not  Issues.  —  When  a  large  quantity 
of  material  on  the  case  has  been  gathered  through  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  facts,  then  the  third  main  step  in  finding  the 
issues  may  be  taken.  This  step  is  called  the  exclusion  of 
points  not  issues,  and  consists :  First,  in  the  exclusion  of 
irrelevant  matter;  and  second,  in  the  exclusion  of  admitted 
and  waived  matter. 

Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  Matter.  —  The  exclusion  of  mat- 
ter that  is  irrelevant  to  the  case  is  accomplished  in  three 
ways :  namely,  — 


Finding  the  Issues  191 

1.  By  Classifying  the  Proposition.1 

2.  By  Defining  the  Terms  According  to  the  Method  of 

Exclusion.2 

3.  By  Detecting  Fallacies  of  Argument  Beside  the  Point.3 

If,  for  example,  a  proposition  is  classified  as  a  proposition 
of  fact,  then  any  proof  under  it  that  assumes  the  proposi- 
tion to  be  one  of  policy  is  irrelevant ;  and  the  same  thing  is 
true  of  the  proof  under  a  proposition  of  policy. 

To  illustrate :  A  proposition  of  fact  says  in  effect  that 
something  is  true ;  and,  therefore,  any  proof  under  it  to  the 
effect  that  this  thing  should  be  true  is  irrelevant.  And 
similarly,  a  proposition  of  policy  says  in  effect  that  a  certain 
course  of  action  should  be  adopted.  Any  proof  under  it, 
therefore,  to  the  effect  that  this  course  of  action  will,  or  will 
not,  be  adopted  is  irrelevant;  and  any  proof  to  the  effect 
that  people  have  a  right  to  refuse  to  adopt  this  course  of 
action  is  also  irrelevant. 

If  the  terms  of  a  proposition  are  defined  according  to  the 
method  of  exclusion,  then  any  proof  under  the  proposition 
that  supports  it  according  to  an  interpretation  supplied  by 
these  excluded  meanings  is  irrelevant. 

Proof  under  a  proposition  that  consists  of  argument  beside 
the  point  is  also  irrelevant ;  and,  therefore,  all  argument  ad 
hominem,  ad  populurrty  ad  ignorantiam,  and  ad  verecundiam, 
should  be  excluded  from  consideration  as  an  issue  in  the 
case. 

Exclusion  of  Admitted  and  Waived  Matter.  —  After  all 
irrelevant  matter  has  been  excluded  from  a  list  of  possible 


1  See  pages  21-22. 

2  See  pages  140-141. 

3  See  pages  114-119. 


192  Building  the  Case 

issues,  then  the  process  of  exclusion  should  be  extended  to 
cover  all  admitted  and  waived  matter. 

Admitted  matter  under  a  proposition  may  consist  of  three 
kinds,  as  follows : 

1.  Matter  of  Undoubted  Common  Knowledge. 

2.  Matter  in  an  Opponent's  Case  That  Can  Be  Conceded 

without  Injury. 

3.  Matter  in  One's  Own  Case  That  Has  Been  Expressly 

Admitted  by  an  Opponent. 

Waived  matter  under  a  proposition  consists  of  any  points 
that  one  side  might  contest ;  but  which  it  has  agreed  to  ex- 
clude from  the  discussion. 

Selection  of  Points  as  Issues.  —  When  the  process  of  ex- 
clusion has  been  finished,  then  the  points  remaining  in  the 
assembled  material  under  the  proposition  are  likely  to  be 
issues.  To  be  sure  that  they  are  issues,  however,  the  de- 
bater should  test  each  to  see  whether  it  ought  to  provoke  a 
clash  of  opinion;  and  then  he  should  separate  the  main 
issues  from  the  subordinate  issues  by  selecting  as  main  issues 
those  points  that  summarize  all  the  proof  in  his  case.  In 
most  cases,  not  more  than  three  or  four  main  issues  should 
be  selected ;  because  this  number  of  points  is  all  that  a  de- 
bater and  his  audience  can  easily  bear  in  mind  for  the  pur- 
pose of  passing  judgment. 

Illustration  of  the  Process  of  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The 
process  of  finding  the  issues  in  an  actual  case  may  be  illus- 
trated from  material  used  by  Burke  in  his  case  on  Concilia- 
tion  with  the  American  Colonies.  This  material  will  be  listed 
in  an  orderly  fashion  according  to  the  way  in  which  it  would 
be  recorded  :  First,  under  a  definition  of  terms ;  second,  un- 
der a  first  survey  of  the  proof ;   third,  under  the  origin  and 


Finding  the  Issues  193 

history  of  the  case ;   and  fourth,  under  a  study  of  both  sides 
of  all  phases  of  the  case. 

As  this  material  is  listed,  each  part  to  be  excluded  from 
the  final  list  of  issues  will  be  marked  with  the  reason  for  its 
exclusion;  and  then  all  the  remaining  material  will  be 
gathered  together :  First,  in  a  long  list  of  points  that  should 
provoke  a  clash  of  opinion ;  and  then,  finally,  in  a  brief  list 
of  four  points  that  summarize  all  the  proof  in  the  case. 

Illustration  of  the  Process  of  Definition  in  Finding  the 
Issues.  —  The  following  definitions  represent  the  first  step 
in  the  process  of  finding  the  issues  for  Burke's  case  on  Con- 
ciliation: 

Definition  of  Terms  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge 

I.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  is  defined  as  follows  : 

A.  It  is  a  policy  to  restore  peace  in  America. 

B.  It  is  a  policy  of  complete  concession  to  the  demands 
of  the  colonists  regarding  taxation  and  authorizes  a 
system  of  taxation  depending  entirely  on  voluntary 
grants  of  revenue  from  the  colonies. 

C.  Burke's  policy  differs  from  the  present  policy,  in 
that  it  substitutes,  for  a  policy  of  coercion  to  enforce 
taxation  by  Parliament,  a  policy  of  concession  author- 
izing taxation  by  colony  grant. 

Illustration  of  the  First  Survey  of  the  Proof  in  Finding 
the  Issues.  —  From  the  Definitions  given  above,  the  fol- 
lowing first  survey  of  the  proof  in  Burke's  case  on  Concilia- 
tion may  be  made : 

First  Survey  of  the  Proof 

I.   England  should  adopt  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  with 
the  American  colonies ;  for 


194  Building  the  Case 

A.  Some  change  in  policy  is  necessary ;  for 

Phase  I:  —  Peace  in  America  is  now  disturbed.  — 
Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

Phase  II:  —  The  disturbance  in  America  is  due  to 
the  present  policy  of  coercing  the  colonies  to  en- 
force taxation  by  Parliament. 

B.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  be  beneficial; 
for 

Phase  III:  —  Burke's  policy  would  substitute,  for 
the  present  policy  of  coercing  the  colonies  to 
enforce  taxation  by  Parliament,  a  policy  of  con- 
cession authorizing  taxation  by  colony  grant.  — 
Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

Phase  IV:  —  Burke's  policy  of  concession  authoriz- 
ing taxation  by  colony  grant  would  restore  peace 
in  America. 

C.  Burke's  policy  would  not  introduce  any  new  and 
worse  evils. 

D.  No  substitute  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation. 

Illustration  of  Points  Discovered  in  the  Origin  and  His- 
tory of  a  Case.  —  To  expand  the  list  of  points  discovered 
in  the  first  survey  of  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation,  a  study 
of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  case  would  yield  the  follow- 
ing points : 

Origin  and  History  of  the  Case 

I.  The  colonies  have  resisted  all  attempts  to  collect 
taxes  levied  on  them  by  Parliament  without  their 
consent.  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 
II.  Their  resistance  has  developed  through  chronic  dis- 
order and  tumult  into  a  state  of  almost  open  re- 
volt. —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 


Finding  the  Issues  195 

III.  To  restore  peace,  Parliament  has  recently  approved 
Lord  North's  plan  of  concession  by  compromise. — Ad- 
mitted as  Common  Knowledge. 

A.   This  plan  may  be  defined  as  follows : 

1.  It  concedes  to  the  colonies  the  right  to  raise 
taxes  by  whatever  method  they  choose ;  but 

2.  It  reserves  to  Parliament  the  right  to  fix  the 
total  sum  to  be  raised  by  all  the  colonies 
and  the  quota  that  should  be  assigned  to 
each.  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

IV.  Now  the  whole  question  of  American  policy  has  come 
up  again  in  an  aggravated  form.  —  Admitted  as  Com- 
mon Knowledge. 

A.  Further  savage  measures  to  crush  the  trade  and 
stop  the  fisheries  of  all  the  colonies  have  been 
passed  by  the  House  of  Lords  and  sent  to  the 
Commons  for  their  approval. — Admitted  as  Com- 
mon Knowledge. 

V.  Various  explanations  have  been  offered  for  the  stub- 
born spirit  of  resistance  among  the  colonies. — Ad- 
mitted as  Common  Knowledge. 

A.  One  explanation  is  that  this  spirit  is  due  only  to 
their  grievances  in  the  matter  of  taxation. 

B.  Another  is  that  this  spirit  is  due  to  a  desire  to 
throw  off  all  the  trade  laws  enacted  by  Parlia- 
ment. 

C.  Another  is  that  it  is  due  to  a  desire  on  the  part 
of  the  colonies  for  their  independence. 

VI.  Various  plans  for  solving  the  general  problem  have 
been  advanced.  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

A.  One  is  that  this  problem  should  be  settled  as 
a  question  of  legal  right.  —  Irrelevant  by  Classi- 
fying the  Proposition. 


196  Building  the  Case 

B.  Another  is  that  the  colonies  should  simply  be 
punished  for  their  stubbornness.  —  Irrelevant  by 
Definition  of  the  Purpose  of  the  Proposed  Policy, 

C.  Another  is  to  force  submission  to  taxation  by 
Parliament  by  making  war  on  the  colonies. 

D.  Another  is  to  force  submission  to  taxation  by 
Parliament  by  further  restrictive  and  punitive 
measures. 

E.  Other  plans  involve  some  sort  of  concession.  — 
Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

1.  One  is  to  give  the  colonies  their  independence. 
—  Admitted  by  Both  Sides  to  be  Undesirable. 

2.  Another  is  to  give  the  colonies  representation 
in  Parliament.  —  Irrelevant  to  Burke's  Policy 
by  Definition ,  and  Admitted  by  Both  Sides  to 
be  Impossible. 

3.  Another  is  Lord  North's  compromise  plan. 
VII.   Some  fixed  policy  of  dealing  with  America  must  soon 

be  established.  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 
A.   The  people  are  becoming  restive  under  the  many 

shiftings  of  the  ministry.  —  Admitted  as  Common 

Knowledge. 

1.  They  realize  the  importance  of  peace.  —  Ad- 
mitted as  Common  Knoioledge. 

(a)  The  colonies  have  been  a  great  source  of 
strength  to  England.  —  Admitted  as  Com- 
mon Knowledge. 

(b)  In  the  recent  tumult  and  disorders  they 
have  become  a  great  source  of  weakness. 
—  Admitted  as  Common  Knowledge. 

VIII.  To  restore  peace  permanently  Burke  now  proposes  a 
policy  of  conciliation. — Admitted  as  Common  Knowl- 
edge. 


Finding  the  Issues  197 

IX.  Burke  is  accused  of  being  a  mere  obstructionist  op- 
posing the  ministry  because  he  belongs  to  the  mir- 
nority  in  Parliament.  —  Irrelevant  as  Argument  ad 
Hominem . 

Illustration  of  Points  Discovered  by  a  Study  of  Both 
Sides  of  all  Phases  of  the  Case.  —  When  a  careful  study 
has  been  made  of  the  origin  and  history  of  Burke's  case,  then 
a  careful  study  of  both  sides  of  all  phases  of  the  case  should 
be  undertaken.  Such  a  study  will  yield  the  following  points 
in  an  expanded  survey  of  the  proof : 

I.   Should   England   adopt   Burke's   policy   of   conciliation 
with  the  American  colonies  ? 

Study  of  Both  Sides  of  All  Phases 

A.  Is  some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation 
necessary  ? 

Phase  I:  —  Are  there  tumults  and  disorders  in 
America?  —  Admitted  as  Common  Knowl- 
edge. 
Phase  II:  —  Are  these  tumults  and  disorders  due  to 
the  present  policy  of  coercing  the  colonies  to 
enforce  taxation  by  Parliament? 
(a)    Is  the  point  true   that  they  are  due  to   a 

desire  on  the  part  of  the  colonies  to  throw 

off  all  the  trade  laws  enacted  by  Parliament  ? 
(6)    Is  the  point  true  that  they   are  due  to   a 

desire  on  the  part  of  the  colonies  for  their 

independence  ? 

B.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  be  beneficial? 
Phase  III:  —  Does  this  policy  make  any  material 

change  from  the  present  policy  ?  —  Admitted  as 
Common  Knowledge. 


198  Building  the  Case 

Phase  IV:  —  Would  this  policy  restore  peace  in 
America  ? 

C.  Would  Burke's  policy  introduce  new  and  worse  evils  ? 
Phase  V:  —  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  a  loss 

of  revenue? 

Phase  VI:  —  Would  a  loss  of  revenue  be  a  real  evil  ? 
—  Admitted  by  Burke. 

Phase  V:  —  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  a  de- 
mand for  the  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  ? 

Phase  VI:  —  Would  a  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  be 
a  real  evil? 

Phase  V:  —  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  further 
concessions  extending  to  all  legislative  authority 
exercised  by  Parliament? 

Phase  VI:  —  Would  concessions  extending  to  all 
legislative  authority  by  Parliament  be  a  real 
evil  ?  —  Admitted  by  Burke. 

Phase  V:  —  Would  Burke's  policy  destroy  the  unity 
of  the  empire  ? 

Phase  VI:  — ■  Would  the  destruction  of  the  unity  of 
the  empire  be  a  real  evil? — Admitted  by  Burke. 

Phase  V:  —  Would  Burke's  policy  violate  the  Con- 
stitution ?  , 

Phase  VI:  —  Would  a  violation  of  the  Constitution 
be  a  real  evil  ?  —  Admitted  by  Burke. 

D.  Would  any  other  policy  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  ? 

1.   Would  resort  to  war  be  more  satisfactory? 

Phase  VIII: — Is  war  materially  different  from 

the  present  policy  ?  —  Admitted  by  Burke. 
Phase  IX:  —  Is  war   materially   different   from 

Burke's  policy?  —  Admitted  by  Burke. 
Phase  X:  —  Would  war  restore  peace  in  America  ? 


Finding  the  Issues  199 

Phase  XII: — Would  war  impair  the  value  of  the 
colonies  to  England  ? 
2.   Would  further  restrictive  and  punitive  measures 

be  more  satisfactory? 

Phase  VIII: — Would  these  measures  be  mate- 
rially different  from  the  present  policy  ?  — Ad- 
mitted  by  Burke. 

Phase  IX :  —  Would  these  measures  be  mate- 
rially different  from  Burke's  policy?  —  Ad- 
mitted by  Burke. 

Phase  X :  —  Would  these  measures  restore  peace 
in  America? 

Phase  XII: — Would   these  measures  impair  the 
value  of  the  colonies  to  England? 
3.   Would  Lord  North's  compromise  plan  be  more 

satisfactory  ? 

Phase  VIII : — Is  Lord  North's  plan  simply  a 
disguised  form  of  the  present  policy  ? 

Phase  IX :  —  Would  Lord  North's  plan  be  ma- 
terially different  from  Burke's  policy?  —  Ad- 
mitted  by  Burke. 

Phase  X :  —  Would  Lord  North's  plan  restore 
peace  in  America? 

Phase  XII :  —  Would  Lord  North's  plan  prove 
fatal  to  the  British  Constitution? 

Phase  XII :  —  Would  Lord  North's  plan  over- 
whelm the  ministry  with  perplexing  problems  ? 

Phase  XII :  —  Would  Lord  North's  plan  result 
in  a  loss  of  revenue  from  America? 

Illustration  of  the  Process  of  Exclusion  in  Finding  the 
Issues.  —  From  the  foregoing  list  of  points,  a  long  list  of 
possible  issues  in  Burke's  case  may  be  secured  by  the  pro- 


200  Building  the  Case 

cess  of  exclusion.     In  the  following  list,  all  points  marked 
irrelevant  or  admitted  in  the  foregoing  list  are  excluded : 

Possible  Issues  after  the  Process-  of  Exclusion 

I.   Is  some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation  nec- 
essary to  restore  peace  in  America  ? 

A.  Are  the  tumults  and  disorders  in  America  due  to  the 
present  policy  of  coercing  the  colonies  to  enforce 
taxation  by  Parliament  ? 

1.  Is  the  point  true  that  they  are  due  to  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  colonies  to  throw  off  all  the  trade 
laws  enacted  by  Parliament? 

2.  Is  the  point  true  that  they  are  due  to  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  colonies  for  their  independence  ? 

II.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  restore  peace  in 
America  ? 

III.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  introduce  new  and 
worse  evils  ? 

A.  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  a  loss  of  revenue 
from  America  ? 

B.  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  a  demand  for  the 
repeal  of  the  trade  laws  ? 

C.  Would  a  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  be  a  real  evil  ? 

D.  Would  Burke's  policy  result  in  further  concession 
extending  to  all  legislative  authority  exercised  by 
Parliament  ? 

E.  Would  Burke's  policy  destroy  the  unity  of  the  em- 
pire? 

F.  Would  Burke's  policy  violate  the  Constitution  ? 

IV.  Would   any   other  policy  be   more   satisfactory   than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  ? 

A.   Would  resort  to  war  be  more  satisfactory? 
1.  Would  war  restore  peace  in  America? 


Finding  the  Issues  201 

2.   Would  war  impair  the  value  of  the  colonies  to 
England? 

B.  Would  further  restrictive  and  punitive  measures 
be  more  satisfactory? 

1.  Would  these  measures  restore  peace  in  America? 

2.  Would  these  measures  impair  the  value  of  the 
colonies  to  England  ? 

C.  Would   Lord   North's   compromise  plan   be   more 
satisfactory  ? 

1.  Is  Lord  North's  compromise  plan  simply  a  dis- 
guised form  of  the  present  policy? 

2.  Would  Lord  North's  plan  restore  peace  in  Amer- 
ica? 

3.  Would  Lord  North's  plan  prove  fatal  to   the 
British  Constitution  ? 

4.  Would  Lord  North's  plan  overwhelm  the  min- 
istry with  perplexing  problems? 

5.  Would  Lord  North's  plan  result  in  a  loss  of  rev- 
enue from  America  ? 

Illustration  of  the  Process  of  Selecting  Points  as  Issues.  — 

All  the  points  in  the  foregoing  list  will  constitute  either  main 
issues  or  subordinate  issues  in  Burke's  case ;  for  proof  may 
be  advanced  on  both  sides  of  each  of  these  points.  Too 
many  points  are  included  in  this  list,  however,  for  all  of 
them  to  constitute  main  issues ;  and,  hence,  only  those  main 
points  that  summarize  all  the  proof  should  be  selected  as 
the  main  issues  in  the  case.  The  main  issues  of  Burke's 
case  are,  therefore,  the  points  given  below : 

Main  Issues 

I.   Is  some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation 
necessary  to  restore  peace  in  America  ? 


202  Building  the  Case 

II.   Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  restore  peace  in 
America  ? 

III.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  introduce  new 
and  worse  evils  ? 

IV.  Would  any  other  policy  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  ? 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Finding  the  Issues.  —  The 
process  of  finding  the  issues  is  one  of  the  most  important 
steps  in  building  the  case;  rfor  the  issues  constitute  those 
main  questions  of  fact  or  theory  on  the  settlement  of  which 
depends  the  establishment  or  disestablishment  of  the  prop- 
osition; and  the  process  of  finding  either  main  or  subor- 
dinate issues  continues  throughout  the  whole  process  of 
building  the  case.  It  is  highly  important,  therefore,  that 
the  student  of  debate  should  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  all 
the  requirements  for  the  issues  and  with  all  the  steps  nec- 
essary for  finding  them. 


CHAPTER   IV 
DRAWING   THE   BRIEF1 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  The  first  three  steps  in  building 
the  case  have  been  described  as  defining  the  terms,  surveying 
the  proof,  and  finding  the  issues.  Of  these  three  steps,  defin- 
ing the  terms,  and  surveying  the  proof  are  merely  intended 
to  aid  in  the  process  of  finding  the  issues. 

The  whole  case  must  be  built  around  the  issues ;  for  the 
issues  are  the  main  questions  of  fact  or  theory  on  the  settle- 
ment of  which  depends  the  establishment  or  disestablish- 
ment of  the  proposition.  When  the  issues  have  been  found, 
however,  another  step  still  remains  to  be  taken  in  building 
the  case :  namely,  to  assemble  all  the  available  proof  around 
the  issues  in  such  a  way  that  it  shows  clearly  every  process 
of  reasoning  by  which  the  proposition  is  upheld  or  over- 
thrown. This  last  step  in  building  the  case  is  called  draw- 
ing the  brief. 

Definition  of  the  Brief.  —  The  brief  is  a  complete  written 
outline  of  all  the  available  proof  in  a  case  assembled  with  the 
purpose  of  establishing  the  truth  of  one  side  of  the  proposi- 
tion, and  arranged  so  as  to  make  clear  at  a  glance  the  rela- 
tion of  each  part  of  the  proof  to  all  other  parts  and  to  the 
proposition. 

Distinction  between  a  Debater's  Brief  and  All  Other  Out- 
lines. —  The  debater's  brief  differs  from  all  other  outlines  in 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Drawing  the  Brief,  see  Appendix  A, 

203 


204  Building  the  Case 

three  important  respects:  First,  it  never  employs  mere 
terms  or  catch-phrases  for  its  topics,  but  always  employs 
complete  sentences.  Second,  it  never  employs  a  paragraph 
structure  for  the  expression  of  its  ideas;  but  always  em- 
ploys indented  headings  and  subheadings.  And  third,  it 
makes  no  attempt  to  follow  the  order  of  thought  that  would 
be  most  effective  in  presenting  a  subject  to  a  particular 
audience,  but  always  presents  ideas  strictly  in  the  order  of 
their  logical  relation  to  the  proposition. 

The  brief,  therefore,  should  not  be  regarded  as  a  mere 
suggestive  outline  for  the  development  of  a  speech,  or  as  an 
outline  to  be  followed  in  the  delivery  of  a  speech;  but  it 
should  be  regarded  rather  as  a  complete  outline  of  a  case 
showing  clearly  the  logical  relation  of  each  part  of  the  proof 
to  all  other  parts  of  the  proof  and  to  the  proposition. 

Distinction  between  a  Debater's  Brief  and  a  Legal  Brief 
on  Appeal.  —  The  debater's  brief  should  also  be  distinguished 
clearly  from  the  legal  brief  used  in  cases  on  appeal  from  the 
lower  courts  to  the  higher  courts.  The  legal  brief  on  appeal, 
without  doubt,  is  the  source  from  which  all  the  principles 
for  developing  a  debater's  brief  were  derived;  but  these 
two  kinds  of  briefs  now  involve  very  important  differences, 
both  in  regard  to  the  purpose  which  each  is  intended  to 
serve,  and  also  in  regard  to  their  structure. 

The  purpose  of  the  legal  brief  is  to  present  the  court  with 
a  concise  printed  statement  of  the  whole  case  to  aid  the 
court  in  coming  to  a  decision;  but  the  purpose  of  the  de- 
bater's brief  is  to  put  in  the  most  concise  written  or  printed 
form  all  the  proof  in  a  case  to  assist  the  debater  himself  in 
keeping  clear  all  the  different  parts  of  his  proof. 

The  legal  brief  also  employs  a  paragraph  structure  for  the 
expression  of  its  ideas;    whereas,  the  debaters  brief  always 


Drawing  the  Brief  205 

employs  a  system  of  indented  headings  and  subheadings. 
Because  the  legal  brief  does  employ  a  paragraph  structure, 
it  is  much  less  exacting  in  its  requirements  than  the  debater's 
brief.  When,  therefore,  the  student  has  mastered  all  the 
requirements  for  the  debater's  brief,  he  need  experience 
little  difficulty  in  the  construction  of  a  legal  brief. 

The  purpose  of  this  text  is  to  teach  merely  the  principles 
governing  the  construction  of  a  debater's  brief  rather  than 
the  principles  governing  the  construction  of  a  legal  brief  on 
appeal.  If,  however,  the  student  is  interested  in  the  sub- 
ject of  legal  briefs  on  appeal,  he  is  referred  to  the  most  au- 
thoritative and  elaborate  treatment  of  the  subject  in  the 
work  called  Brief  Making,  published  by  the  West  Publish- 
ing Company  of  St.  Paul,  Minnesota ;  or  to  the  more  con- 
cise treatment  of  the  subject  in  Maxcy's  The  Brief,  pub- 
lished by  Houghton  Mifflin  Co. 

I.   GENERAL  RULES  OF   BRIEF-DRAWING 

General  Rules  of  Brief-Drawing.  —  The  subject  of  brief- 
drawing  from  the  debater's  standpoint  may  be  approached 
best  by  giving:  First,  the  general  rules  of  brief -drawing ; 
second,  the  special  rules  for  the  Introduction;  third,  the 
special  rules  for  the  Discussion;  and  fourth,  the  special 
rules  for  the  Conclusion. 

The  general  rules  of  brief-drawing  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  brief  should  always  appear  with  a  title  clearly  de- 

scribing its  contents. 

2.  The  brief  should  always  contain  three  main  divisions 

marked  respectively :   Introduction ;  Discussion ;  and 
Conclusion. 

3.  All  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged  as  headings 

and  subheadings. 


206  Building  the  Case 

4.  Every  heading  and  subheading  should  be  a  complete 

sentence. 

5.  Every  heading  and  subheading  should  express  only  a 

single  point. 

6.  The  relation  between  all  headings  and  subheadings 

should  be  indicated  by  regular  indentation,  number- 
ing, and  lettering. 

7.  No  heading  or  subheading  should  be  marked  with  a 

double  symbol. 

The  Title. — The  title  of  a  brief  is  a  device  that  serves 
two  purposes :  First,  it  assists  in  filing  the  brief  as  a  docu- 
ment ;  and  second,  it  assists  in  making  plain  at  a  glance  the 
general  content  of  the  brief. 

The  title  of  the  brief  should  always  name  the  document 
as  a  brief ;  indicate  the  type  of  proposition  to  be  considered ; 
set  forth  the  side  of  the  case  to  be  upheld;  and  give  the 
exact  wording  of  the  proposition. 

A  specimen  form  of  the  title  is  given  below : 

A  Brief 

For  the  Affirmative  (or  Negative) 

of  the 

Proposition  of  Fact  (or  Policy) 

Resolved :  That 


The  Introduction,  Discussion,  and  Conclusion.  —  The 
three  main  divisions  of  the  brief  are :  the  Introduction ; 
Discussion ;  and  Conclusion. 

The  purpose  of  the  Introduction  is  to  record  the  issues  and 
the  main  points  to  be  proved,  with  whatever  preliminary 
statements  are  necessary  to  explain  and  defend  the  selec- 
tion of  these  points  as  the  main  points  in  controversy. 


Drawing  the  Brief  207 

The  purpose  of  the  Discussion  is  to  record  whatever  proof 
is  available  to  establish  one  side  of  the  case  under  the  main 
points  set  forth  to  be  proved. 

The  purpose  of  the  Conclusion  is  to  summarize  all  the  main 
points  of  proof  in  such  a  .way  as  to  show  that  one  side  of  the 
case  has  been  established. 

Headings  and  Subheadings.  —  The  purpose  of  the  brief 
is  to  make  clear  at  a  glance  all  the  main  and  the  subordi- 
nate points  of  a  case  in  their  relation  to  one  another  and  to 
the  proposition.  To  make  this  relation  clear,  a  device  is 
used  in  which  all  points  are  arranged  as  either  headings  or 
subheadings. 

The  student  is  already  familiar  with  this  system  of  arrang- 
ing points,  which  has  been  used  throughout  this  text  in  pre- 
senting chains  of  reasoning.1 

This  system  may  be  likened,  however,  not  only  to  a 
method  of  arranging  points  in  chains  that  lead  to  the  propo- 
sition, but  also  to  a  method  of  arrangement  in  which  points 
of  proof  ascend  to  the  proposition  step  by  step  in  various 
flights  of  stairs. 

The  arrangement  of  headings  and  subheadings,  as  it 
resembles  flights  of  stairs,  may  be  illustrated  in  the  follow- 
ing skeleton  outline : 

I.  The  Proposition. 


A.  A  Main  Point. 

1.  A  Subordinate  Point. 

\(a)   Evidence. 

Main  Point. 

1.   A  Subordinate  Point. 

(a)   Evidence. 


1  See  pages  30-33. 


208  Building  the  Case 

Headings  and  Subheadings  as  Complete  Sentences.  — 
The  brief  aims,  not  merely  to  suggest  points  that  may  be 
used  in  a  case,  but  to  record  accurately  and  clearly  the  exact 
points  that  are  to  be  used.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  it 
cannot  employ  mere  terms  and  catch-phrases  in  its  headings 
and  subheadings ;  but  it  must  employ  complete  sentences ; 
for  mere  terms  and  catch-phrases  simply  suggest  points ; 
whereas,  a  complete  sentence  is  necessary  to  express  a  point 
accurately  and  clearly. 

The  difference  between  the  clearness  and  accuracy  of  an 
outline  that  employs  mere  terms  and  catch-phrases  and  an 
outline  that  employs  complete  sentences  is  illustrated  in 
the  two  specimens  from  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation  which 
follow : 

Outline  Employing  Catch-Phrases 

I.   Other  Policies 
A.  War 

1.  Temporary 

2.  Uncertain 

3.  No  Example 

4.  Impaired  Value  of  Object 

This  outline,  as  it  stands,  may  suggest  a  countless  number 
of  points  to  the  person  who  made  it ;  but  it  fails  utterly  to 
record  accurately  and  clearly  the  exact  poinds  that  are  to  be 
used ;  and  it  cannot,  therefore,  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
a  brief. 

If  the  topics  in  this  outline  were  expanded  into  sentences, 
however,  as  in  the  following  outline,  it  would  be  perfectly 
clear : 

Outline  Employing  Complete  Sentences 

I.   No  other  policy  of  restoring  peace  in  America  would  be 
more  satisfactory  than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 


Drawing  the  Brief  209 


lo 


A.  The  policy  of  resorting  to  war  would  not  be  more 
satisfactory;  for 

1.  Peace  established  by  war  is  only  temporary. 

2.  The  outcome  of  war  is  always  uncertain. 

3.  There  is  no  example  of  success  in  ruling  colonies 
by  force  of  arms. 

4.  War  would  simply  impair  the  value  of  the  colonies 
to  England. 

Headings  and  Subheadings  as  Single  Points.  — The  brief 
aims  to  keep  entirely  separate  all  the  various  distinct  lines 
of  proof  that  lead  to  the  proposition  ;  and,  hence,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  these  various  lines  of  proof  should  not  be  confused 
by  the  use  of  headings  or  subheadings  that  express  more 
than  a  single  point. 

The  confusion  resulting  from  a  heading  that  expresses 
more  than  a  single  point  is  illustrated  in  the  following  out- 
line of  proof  taken  from  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation: 

Confused  Outline  with  Double  Point 

I.   Lord  North's  plan  is,  not  only  a  mere  experiment,  but  it 
is  also  a  dangerous  experiment ;  for 

A.  There  is  no  precedent  for  it ;  for 

1 .  It  is  not  regular  Parliamentary  taxation ;  and 

2.  It  is  not  taxation  by  colony  grant. 

B.  It  will  prove  fatal  to  the  British  Constitution;    for 
1.   It  will  establish  a  system  of  taxation  by  the  min- 
istry. 

In  this  outline  it  is  plainly  apparent  that  the  reason  why 
Lord  North's  plan  is  an  experiment  is  not  that  it  will  prove 
fatal  to  the  British  Constitution;  but  the  reason  is  that 
there  is  no  precedent  for  it.  Yet,  according  to  the  outline, 
both  these  reasons  are  given  for  this  statement. 


210  Building  the  Case 


6 


In  the  outline,  page  209,  it  is  also  plainly  apparent  that 
the  reason  why  Lord  North's  plan  is  dangerous  is  not  that 
it  is  a  mere  experiment ;  but  the  reason  is  that  it  will  prove 
fatal  to  the  British  Constitution.  Yet,  according  to  the 
outline,  both  these  reasons  are  given  for  this  statement. 

The  confusion  in  this  proof  is  due  entirely  to  the  use  of  a 
heading  that  expresses  more  than  a  single  point;  and  this 
confusion  could  be  avoided  by  expressing  the  two  points  in 
separate  headings  as  in  the  outline  below : 

Clear  Outline  with  Single  Points 

I.  Lord  North's  plan  is  a  mere  experiment ;  for 
A.  There  is  no  precedent  for  it ;  for 

1.  It  is  not  regular  Parliamentary  taxation ;  and 

2.  It  is  not  taxation  by  colony  grant. 

II.  The  experiment  in  Lord  North's  plan  is  dangerous ;  for 
A.   It  will  prove  fatal  to  the  British  Constitution ;  for 
1.   It  will  establish  a  system  of  taxation  by  the  minis- 
try. 

Indentation,  Numbering,  and  Lettering.  —  The  system 
of  regular  indentation,  numbering,  and  lettering  for  head- 
ings and  subheadings  is  a  device  for  making  clear  at  a  glance 
the  relation  between  various  points  in  a  case;  and  it  is  a 
very  important  device  for  this  purpose. 

The  system  of  numbering  and  lettering  commonly  em- 
ployed is  represented  in  the  following  skeleton  outline : 

Numbering  and  Lettering  in  Skeleton  Outline 

I 

A 

1 , ■  ♦,,.., 


Drawing  the  Brief  211 

B 

1 

2 

(a)  

C 

1 

(a) 

(b) 

d')     

W)  ••••• 

dO  

(«')  

(I") 

The  importance  of  observing  a  regular  system  of  indenta- 
tion for  headings  and  subheadings  is  illustrated  in  the  two 
following  outlines.  In  the  first  outline  given  below,  the 
clearness  of  the  relation  between  points  is  greatly  obscured, 
because  a  regular  system  of  indentation  is  not  observed. 

Confused  Outline  from  Irregular  Indentation 

I.  No  other  policy  for  restoring  peace  in  America  would  be 
more  satisfactory  than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation;  for 
A.  A  policy  of  further  restrictive  and  punitive  measures 
to  enforce  taxation  by  Parliament  would  not  be  more  satis- 
factory; for 

1.  Such  measures  must  aim  either  to  remove  the 
causes  of  the  spirit  of  resistance  among  the  colonies,  or  to 
prosecute  this  spirit  as  criminal  in  its  overt  acts ;  and 

2.  Any  attempt  to  remove  the  causes  of  this  spirit 
would  be  either  impracticable  or  inexpedient ;  for 

(a)   One  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  is  the  slave- 
system  in  the  South ;  and 


212  Building  the  Case 

(b)  Any  attempt  to  crush  the  high  spirit  of  the 
South  by  liberating  the  slaves  against  their  masters  would 
be  impracticable ;  for 

(I')   The  slaves  might  not  accept  their  free- 
dom from  us ;  for 

(A')   They  are  often  attached  to  their 
masters;  and 

(J3')   They  would  suspect  an  offer  of 
freedom  from  us ;  for 

(1')    We  sold  them  into  slavery. 
The  clearness  of  this  outline  is,  of  course,  utterly  ruined 
by  the  irregularity  of  its  indentation;    but,  if  the  indenta- 
tion were  made  regular,  as  in  the  following  outline,  its  clear- 
ness would  be  restored  immediately. 

Clear  Outline  by  Regular  Indentation 

I.   No  other  policy  for  restoring  peace  in  America  would  be 
more  satisfactory  than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 
A.   A  policy  of  further  restrictive  and  punitive  measures 

to   enforce   taxation   by   Parliament   would   not   be 

more  satisfactory ;  for 

1.  Such  measures  must  aim  either  to  remove  the 
causes  for  the  spirit  of  resistance  among  the 
colonies,  or  to  prosecute  this  spirit  as  criminal  in 
its  overt  acts ;  and 

2.  Any  attempt  to  remove  the  causes  of  this  spirit 
would  be  either  impracticable  or  inexpedient ;  for 
(a)   One  of  the  causes  for  this  spirit  is  the  slave- 
system  in  the  South ;  and 

(6)  Any  attempt  to  crush  the  high  spirit  of  the 
South  by  liberating  the  slaves  against  their 
masters  would  be  impracticable ;  for 


Drawing  the  Brief  213 

(I')   The  slaves  might  not  accept  their  free- 
dom from  us ;  for 
(^4')   They  are  often  attached  to  their 

masters;  and 
(Bf)   They   would   suspect  an   offer  of 
freedom  from  us ;  for 
(1')   We  sold  them  into  slavery. 

The  Use  of  Single  Symbols.  —  To  keep  clear  the  relation 
between  points  in  a  case,  the  debater  should  never  employ 
a  double  symbol  to  mark  any  heading  or  subheading;  for 
such  a  symbol  indicates  that  the  heading  is  both  a  main 
heading  and  a  subheading  at  the  same  time. 

An  illustration  of  briefing  that  is  faulty  in  this  respect  is 
found  in  the  following  outline : 

Confused  Outline  with  Double  Symbols 

I.   No  other  policy  of  restoring  peace  in  America  would  be 
more  satisfactory  than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 

A.  1.   War  can  produce  only  temporary  peace. 
2.   The  outcome  of  war  is  uncertain. 

B.  1.   Lord  North's  plan  is  a  mere  experiment. 

2.   The  experiment  in  Lord  North's  plan  is  danger- 
ous. 
To  clear  up  this  confusion,  the  brief-maker  should  merely 
insert  a  more  general  heading  above  the  heading  that  has  a 
double  symbol.     If  this  were  done  for  the  outline  given 
above,  then  the  points  would  appear  as  follows : 

Clear  Outline  with  Single  Symbols 

I.   No  other  policy  of  restoring  peace  in  America  would  be 
more  satisfactory  than  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 


214  Building  the  Case 

A.  The  policy  of  resorting  to  war  would  not  be  more 
satisfactory;  for 

1.  War  can  produce  only  a  temporary  peace. 

2.  The  outcome  of  war  is  uncertain. 

B.  Lord  North's  plan  would  not  be  more  satisfactory; 
for 

1.  Lord  North's  plan  is  a  mere  experiment. 

2.  The  experiment  in  Lord  North's  plan  is  dangerous. 

General  Structure  of  the  Brief.  —  From  the  foregoing 
general  rules  for  the  construction  of  a  brief,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  structure  of  a  brief  must  correspond  with  the  follow- 
ing skeleton  outline : 

A  Brief 

For  the  Affirmative  (or  Negative) 

of  the 

Proposition  of  Policy  (or  Fact) 

Resolved :  That 

Introduction 

I 

II 

Ill 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Discussion 

I '.. 

A 

1 

(a)      


Drawing  the  Brief         ■  215 

II 

Ill 

IV 

Conclusion 

I 

A 

B 

C 

D 

II 

A 

II.   SPECIAL  RULES   FOR  THE   INTRODUCTION 

Special  Rules  for  the  Introduction.  —  The  special  rules 
governing  the  construction  of  the  Introduction  are : 

1.  The  Introduction  should  always   make  provision  for 

the  following  parts : 

(a)  A  Definition  of  Terms ; 

(b)  A  Statement  of  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Case ; 

(c)  A  Statement  of  Irrelevant  Matter ; 

(d)  A  Statement  of  Admitted  or  Waived  Matter ; 

(e)  A  Statement  of  the  Issues ;  and 

(f)  A  Partition. 

2.  The  Introduction  should  contain  only  matter  that  may 

be  used  to  explain  or  defend  the  selection  of  the 
issues  as  the  main  points  in  the  controversy. 

3.  The  Introduction  should  contain  only  statements,  the 

truth  of  which  must  be  admitted  by  both  sides. 

Definition  of  Terms  in  the  Introduction.  —  The  terms  to 
be  defined  in  the  Introduction  should  be  terms  in  the  given 


216  Building  the  Case 

proposition  or  in  any  alternative  proposition;  but  they 
should  be  only  terms  that  may  give  rise  to  more  than  one 
interpretation. 

These  terms  should  always  be  defined  by  the  methods  of 
analysis  and  exclusion ; 1  and  under  propositions  of  policy, 
the  proposed  policy,  the  present  policy,  and  substitute  pol- 
icies should  be  defined  by  analysis  to  show  :  First,  their  pur- 
pose ;  second,  their  essential  parts ;  and  third,  their  mutual 
differences. 

Origin  and  History  of  the  Case  in  the  Introduction.  —  The 

statement  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  case  in  the  Intro- 
duction should  include :  First,  a  statement  of  the  occasion 
that  has  given  rise  to  the  present  controversy;  second,  sl 
statement  of  the  occasions  that  have  given  rise  to  previous 
similar  controversies;  third,  a  statement  of  the  importance 
that  has  been  attached  to  these  controversies ;  and  fourth, 
a  statement  of  conflicting  views  held  by  people  in  connection 
with  the  proposition  under  discussion. 

Statement  of  Irrelevant  Matter  in  the  Introduction.  —  The 

statement  of  irrelevant  matter  in  the  Introduction  should 
include  all  matter  made  irrelevant :  First,  by  a  classification 
of  the  proposition ;  second,  by  a  definition  of  terms  accord- 
ing to  the  method  of  exclusion ;  and  third,  by  the  detection 
of  fallacies  of  argument  beside  the  point.2 

Statement  of  Admitted  or  Waived  Matter  in  the  Intro- 
duction. —  The  statement  of  admitted  or  waived  matter 
in  the  Introduction  should  include:  First,  all  matter  of 
undoubted  common  knowledge;  second,  all  matter  in  an 
opponent's  case  that  can  be  admitted  without  injury ;  third, 


1  See  pages  140-141.  2  See  pages  20-21,  140-141,  114-119. 


Drawing  the  Brief  217 

all  matter  in  one's  own  case  that  has  been  admitted  by  an 
opponent ;  and  fourth,  all  matter  that  one  side  might  con- 
test, but  which  it  has  agreed  to  exclude  from  the  discussion. 

Statement  of  the  Issues  in  the  Introduction.  —  The  state- 
ment of  the  issues  in  the  Introduction  should  always  include 
only  a  very  limited  number  of  main  points,  preferably  three 
or  four,  upon  the  settlement  of  which  depends  the  establish- 
ment or  disestablishment  of  the  main  proposition.  These 
points,  but  no  others  in  the  whole  brief,  should  be  expressed 
in  the  form  of  direct  questions. 

The  Partition  in  the  Introduction.  —  The  partition  in  the 
Introduction  is  a  statement  of  the  main  points  to  be  proved ; 
and  it  consists  usually  simply  of  the  main  issues  converted 
from  questions  into  statements  that  support  the  side  of  the 
proposition  that  the  debater  upholds.  In  some  cases, 
however,  the  first  subpoints  under  the  main  issues  are 
given  in  the  partition. 

Only  Matter  Explaining  or  Defending  the  Selection  of 
Issues  in  the  Introduction.  —  The  purpose  of  the  Intro- 
duction is  to  clear  the  ground  for  discussion  of  the  proof 
under  the  issues  and  to  make  unnecessary  any  dispute  in  the 
actual  debate  concerning  what  are  the  main  points  that  ought 
to  be  proved.  Any  matter  in  the  Introduction,  therefore, 
that  does  not  tend  to  explain  or  defend  the  selection  of 
certain  points  as  issues,  is  clearly  out  of  place ;  and,  hence, 
the  brief-maker  must  be  constantly  on  his  guard  to  exclude 
matter  that  is  merely  entertaining  or  generally  instructive. 

Only  Statements  Admittedly  True  in  the  Introduction.  — 
Since  the  purpose  of  the  Introduction  is  to  make  unnecessary 
any  dispute  in  the  actual  debate  except  on  matters  under 


218  Building  the  Case 

the  alleged  issues,  it  is  important  that  no  statement  in  the 
Introduction  should  itself  provoke  controversy.  All  state- 
ments in  the  Introduction,  therefore,  should  be  such  that 
their  truth  will  be  admitted  by  both  sides. 


III.   SPECIAL  RULES  FOR  THE   DISCUSSION 

Special  Rules  for  the  Discussion.  —  The  special  rules 
governing  the  construction  of  the  Discussion  are : 

1.  All  main  headings  in  the  Discussion  should  correspond 

exactly  to  the  points  in  the  partition. 

2.  Every  subheading  in  the  Discussion  should  read  as  a 

reason  for  the  truth  of  the  major  heading  immedi- 
ately above  it. 

3.  Whenever  a  concession  is  to  be  made  in  connection  with 

an  argument,  it  should  be  expressed  in  the  form  of 
a  subordinate  clause  attached  to  a  heading  or  sub- 
heading; but  it  should  not  itself  be  expressed  as  a 
separate  heading  or  subheading. 

4.  No  heading  to  be  proved  should  contain  any  part  of 

its  own  proof. 

5.  No  subheading  should  repeat  a  heading  above  it. 

6.  All  chains  of  reasoning  should  be  developed  as  far  as, 

but  no  further  than,  the  evidence. 

7.  The  source  of  all  evidence  not  derived  from  common 

knowledge  should  be  noted  either  in  the  margin  or 
under  the  evidence. 

8.  All  proof  in  refutation  should  be  considered,  not  under 

a  separate  division  of  the  brief,  but  under  the 
particular  issues  to  which  it  applies. 

9.  All  proof  in  refutation  should  be  so  phrased  that  it 

indicates  clearly  the  proof  to  be  refuted. 


Drawing  the  Brief  219 

Main  Headings  the  Same  as  Points  in  the  Partition.  — 
By  a  very  elaborate  process  recorded  under  the  various  parts 
of  the  Introduction,  certain  main  points,  upon  the  settlement 
of  which  depends  the  establishment  or  disestablishment  of 
the  proposition,  have  been  discovered;  and  these  main 
points  have  been  set  forth  in  the  partition  as  the  points  to  be 
proved  in  the  Discussion.  The  main  headings  in  the  Dis- 
cussion, therefore,  should  always  correspond  exactly  to  the 
points  in  the  partition. 

Subheadings  as  Reasons  for  the  Truth  of  the  Major 
Heading  Above.  — Every  subheading  in  the  Discussion  should 
read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of  the  major  heading  immedi- 
ately above  it.  The  effect  of  this  rule  is  that  every  head- 
ing must  be  connected  with  its  subheadings  by  such  expres- 
sions as  for,  since,  because,  and  inasmuch  as;  and  all  other 
connectives  such  as  therefore,  hence,  and  thus  are  strictly 
prohibited. 

The  reason  for  this  rule  is  that  it  makes  the  more  impor- 
tant headings  conspicuous,  and  makes  unnecessary  their 
continual  repetition.  A  single  attempt  to  arrange  all  head- 
ings and  subheadings  according  to  the  opposite  order  — 
that  is,  premise  first  and  conclusion  afterwards  —  will  be 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  its  uselessness. 

Concessions   Not   Expressed   as    Separate  Headings.  — 

The  object  of  the  Discussion  is  to  record  clearly  all  proof  that 
supports  one  side  of  a  proposition ;  and,  hence,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  none  of  the  headings  shall  be  points  that  support 
the  other  side  of  the  proposition ;  for  the  insertion  of  such 
points  merely  leads  to  confusion. 

Sometimes  the  brief-maker  considers  it  desirable,  how- 
ever, to  make  certain  concessions  to  his  opponent  in  con- 
nection with  arguments  that  are  to  be  advanced.     If  such 


220  Building  the  Case 

concessions  must  be  made,  then  they  should  be  expressed 
as  subordinate  clauses  attached  to  some  heading  or  sub- 
heading, rather  than  as  separate  headings  or  subheadings. 

To  illustrate  the  confusion  resulting  from  the  expression 
of  a  concession  as  a  separate  heading,  the  following  faulty 
outline  is  given : 

Confused  Outline  with  Concession  as  Separate 
Heading 

1.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  introduce  new 
and  worse  evils ;  for 

A.  Burke's  policy  may  result  in  a  repeal  of  the  trade 
laws;  but 

B.  A  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  would  not  be  a  real  evil. 

If  the  concession  made  in  this  proof  were  expressed  as  a 
subordinate  clause  attached  to  the  heading  below  it,  then 
there  would  be  no  subheading  that  did  not  read  as  a  reason 
for  the  truth  of  the  major  heading  immediately  above  it,  and 
the  confusion  of  proof  for  one  side  with  proof  for  the  other 
side  would  be  removed.  The  following  outline  shows  how 
this  confusion  may  be  remedied : 

Clear  Outline  with  Concession  as  Subordinate 
Clause 

I.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  introduce  new 
and  worse  evils ;  for 
A.   Even  though  Burke's  policy  may  result  in  a  repeal 

of  the  trade  laws  —  a  repeal  of  these  laws  would 

not  be  a  real  evil. 

No  Heading  to  Contain  Part  of  Its  Own  Proof.  —  Whenever 
a  heading  expresses  any  part  of  its  own  proof,  then  it  contains 
more  than  a  single  point ;  and  one  of  the  points  that  it  con- 


Drawing  the  Brief  221 

tains  is  likely  to  be  assumed  without  warrant.  To  guard 
against  such  unwarranted  assumption,  therefore,  the  rule  is 
made  that  no  heading  should  contain  any  part  of  its  own 
proof. 

To  illustrate  this  error  in  briefing,  the  following  faulty 
outline  is  given : 

Faulty  Outline  with    Heading  Containing  Part   of 
Its  Own  Proof 

1.   Lord  North's  plan  for  restoring  peace  in  America  would 
not   be   so   satisfactory   as   Burke's   policy  of   concilia- 
tion ;    for 
A.   By  establishing  a  system  of  taxation  by  the  ministry, 

Lord  North's  plan  would  prove  fatal  to  the  British 

Constitution. 

The  subheading  in  this  outline  contains  part  of  its  own 
proof  in  the  words  by  establishing  a  system  of  taxation  by  the 
ministry;  and,  thus,  two  points  are  crowded  into  one,  with 
the  result  that  one  of  these  points  is  likely  to  be  assumed 
without  warrant.  To  correct  this  error,  the  point  that  is 
crowded  into  the  heading  should  be  expressed  as  a  subpoint ; 
and,  then,  the  proof  needed  to  establish  it  may  be  appended, 
as  in  the  following  outline : 

Correct  Outline  with  No  Heading  Containing  Part 
of  Its  Own  Proof 

I.  Lord  North's  plan  for  restoring  peace  in  America  would 
not  be  so  satisfactory  as  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ; 
for 

A.   Lord  North's  plan  would  prove  fatal  to  the  British 
Constitution;  for 


222  Building  the  Case 

1.   Lord  North's  plan  would  establish  a  system  of 

taxation  by  the  ministry ;  for 

(a)   The  House  of  Commons  could  not  hear  all 

the  claims  of  the  colonies  about  their  proper 

quotas  without  giving  up  all  other  business. 

No  Heading  to  Repeat  a  Heading  above  It.  —  It  is  im- 
possible, of  course,  to  prove  any  proposition  by  means  of  the 
proposition  itself;  and,  whenever  such  proof  is  attempted, 
it  involves  the  common  fallacy  of  begging  the  question.1 
The  brief-maker  should  be  continually  on  guard,  therefore, 
to  use  no  heading  in  his  Discussion  that  repeats  a  heading 
above  it ;  for  proof  that  involves  such  a  repetition  is  proof 
that  begs  the  question. 

Chains  of  Reasoning  to  Extend  Only  to  the  Evidence.  — 
Two  common  faults  continually  appear  in  debaters'  briefs. 
One  is  that  the  chains  of  reasoning  in  the  Discussion  do  not 
extend  to  the  evidence;  and  the  other  is  that  chains  of 
reasoning  extend  beyond  the  evidence  demonstrating 
points  that  are  perfectly  obvious.  An  important  rule  in 
brief-drawing  is,  therefore,  that  all  chains  of  reasoning 
should  be  developed  as  far  as,  but  no  further  than,  the  evi- 
dence.2 

Notation  of  the  Sources  of  Evidence.  —  Unless  evidence 
is  derived  from  common  knowledge,  its  reliability  may  be 
challenged  at  any  time ;  and,  hence,  it  is  important  to  provide 
against  any  such  contingency  by  noting  the  sources  of 
evidence  in  a  brief.  This  may  be  done  by  placing  an  exact 
reference  to  the  source  either  in  the  margin  against  the  evi- 
dence or  directly  under  the  evidence. 


1  See  pages  107-110. 

2  See  pages  49-52. 


Drawing  the  Brief  223 

A  method  of  notation  for  the  sources  of  evidence  is  given 
in  the  following  outline  : 

I.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  result  in  a  loss 
of  revenue  from  America ;  for 

4.  Experience  has  shown  that  a  system  of  taxation  by 
voluntary  grants  produces  the  richest  revenue ;  for 
1.  This   has   been   the   experience   hitherto   in   the 
colonies;  for 

(a)   Parliament  has  repeatedly  acknowledged  large 
grants  from  the  colonies.  — 
Journals  of  Parliament  — 
Vol.  XXVII ;  May  16  and  19,  1757. 
Vol.  XXVIII ;  June  1, 1758 ;  April  26  and  30, 
1759;    March  26  and  31,  April  28,  1760; 
January  9  and  20,  1761. 
Vol.  XXIX;    January  22   and   26,   1762; 
March  14  and  17,  1763. 

Place  of  Refutation  in  the  Brief.  —  If  refutation  is  placed 
under  a  separate  division  of  the  brief,  then  many  arguments 
are  likely  to  be  refuted  that  are  altogether  irrelevant  to  the 
proposition,  and  many  other  arguments  will  be  refuted  whose 
relation  to  the  proposition  is  not  at  all  clear.  The  only  way, 
therefore,  to  confine  refutation  to  relevant  points  and  to  make 
clear  the  relation  of  refutation  to  the  proposition,  is  to  insist 
that  all  proof  in  refutation  should  be  considered,  not  under  a 
separate  division  of  the  brief,  but  under  the  particular  issues 
to  which  it  applies. 

To  illustrate  how  the  relation  of  refutation  to  the  propo- 
sition may  be  made  obscure  by  the  statement  of  refutation 
under  a  separate  division  of  the  brief,  the  following  faulty 
briefing  of  refutation  is  given : 


£24  Building  the  Case 

Faulty  Briefing  of  Refutation 

Resolved  :  That  England  should  adopt  Burke's  policy  of 
conciliation  with  the  American  colonies. 

Refutation 
I.  The  contention  that  a  repeal  of  the  trade-laws  would  be 
injurious  to  England  is  false ;  for 

A.  The  ministry  has  admitted  that  the  trade  laws  are 
futile  and  useless. 

Just  how  this  refutation  is  related  to  Burke's  proposition 
of  concession  to  the  colonies  by  authorizing  a  system  of 
taxation  by  colony  grant  is  not  made  at  all  clear;  but,  if 
this  refutation  were  placed  under  the  issue  to  which  it  applies, 
as  in  the  following  outline,  then  its  relation  to  the  proposition 
would  be  perfectly  clear. 

Correct  Briefing  of  Refutation 

Resolved:  That  England  should  adopt  Burke's  policy 
of  conciliation  with  the  American  colonies. 

Discussion 
I.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  introduce  new 
and  worse  evils ;  for 

A.  Even  though  Burke's  policy  may  result  in  a  repeal 
of  the  trade  laws  —  a  repeal  of  these  laws  would  not 
be  injurious  to  England ;  for 

1.   The  ministry  has  admitted  that  the  trade  laws  are 
futile  and  useless. 

Phrasing  of  Refutation.  —  In  the  statement  of  refutation, 
great  care  must  be  taken,  not  only  to  show  its  relation  to 
the  proposition,  but  also  to  make  clear  the  exact  proof  to  be 
refuted. 


Drawing  the  Brief  225 

An  illustration  of  refutation  that  is  phrased  in  such  a  way 
that  it  obscures  the  proof  to  be  refuted  is  given  in  the  follow- 
ing outline : 

Faulty  Phrasing  of  Refutation 

I.   The  point  about  the  trade  laws  is  absolutely  without 
foundation;  for 

A.  The  ministry  has  admitted  that  the  trade  laws  are 
futile  and  useless. 

This  phrasing  of  refutation  is  obscure,  because  no  one 
could  tell  from  it  just  what  is  the  point  about  the  trade  laws 
that  is  being  refuted ;  but  if  this  refutation  were  phrased  as 
in  the  following  outline,  it  would  be  perfectly  clear. 

Correct  Phrasing  of  Refutation 

I.  The  contention  that  a  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  would  be 
injurious  to  England  is  unfounded ;   for 
A.  The  ministry  has  admitted  that  the  trade  laws  are 
futile  and  useless. 

IV.   SPECIAL  RULES   FOR   THE   CONCLUSION 

Special  Rules  for  the  Conclusion.  —  The  special  rules 
governing  the  construction  of  the  Conclusion  are : 

1.  The  Conclusion  should  always  contain  a  summary  of 

the  main  points  in  the  Discussion. 

2.  The  Conclusion  should  always  contain  as  its  last  state- 

ment the  proposition  that  was  to  be  proved. 

Summary  of  Points  in  the  Conclusion.  —  Since  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Conclusion  is  to  gather  together  all  the  different 
lines  of  argument  leading  to  the  proposition  to  show  without 
a  re-reading  of  the  brief  that  one  side  of  the  case  has  been 


226  Building  the  Case 

established,  the  Conclusion  must  contain  a  summary  of  the 
main  points  proved  in  the  Discussion.  This  summary  should 
always  correspond  exactly  to  the  partition  in  the  Intro- 
duction. 

Statement  of  the   Proposition  in  the   Conclusion.  —  A 

brief  resembles  very  much,  in  its  exactness,  the  methods  of 
proof  employed  in  geometry  for  the  demonstration  of  the- 
orems ;  and  so,  like  these  demonstrations  in  geometry,  which 
begin  and  end  with  a  statement  of  the  theorem  to  be  proved, 
the  brief  should  also  begin  and  end  with  a  statement  of  the 
proposition  to  be  proved. 

Summary    of    the    Rules   for   Brief-Drawing.  —  In    the 

construction  of  a  brief,  twenty-one  different  rules  must 
be  observed.  For  convenience,  therefore,  in  memorizing 
these  rules,  all  of  them  are  given  together  in  the  following 
summary : 

General  Rules  of  Brief-Drawing 

1.  The  brief  should  always  appear  with  a  title  clearly 

describing  its  contents. 

2.  The  brief  should  always  contain  three  main  divisions 

marked    respectively  :     Introduction ;     Discussion ; 
and  Conclusion. 

3.  All  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged  as  headings 

and  subheadings. 

4.  Every  heading  and  subheading  should  be  a  complete 

sentence. 

5.  Every  heading  and  subheading  should  express  only  a 

single  point. 
♦6.   The  relation  between  all  headings  and  subheadings 
should  be  indicated  by  regular  indentation,  number- 
ing, and  lettering. 


Drawing  the  Brief  227 

7.   No  heading  or  subheading  should  be  marked  with  a 
double  symbol. 

Special  Rules  for  the  Introduction 

1.  The  Introduction  should  always  make  provision  for  the 

following  parts : 
(a)   A  Definition  of  Terms ; 
(6)   A  Statement  of  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Case ; 

(c)  A  Statement  of  Irrelevant  Matter ; 

(d)  A  Statement  of  Admitted  or  Waived  Matter ; 

(e)  A  Statement  of  the  Issues ;  and 

(f)  A  Partition. 

2.  The   Introduction   should   contain   only   matter   that 

may  be  used  to  explain  or  defend  the  selection  of  the 
issues  as  the  main  points  in  the  controversy. 

3.  The  Introduction  should  contain  only  statements  the 

truth  of  which  must  be  admitted  by  both  sides. 

Special  Rules  for  the  Discussion 

1.  All  main  headings  in  the  Discussion  should  correspond 

exactly  to  the  points  in  the  partition. 

2.  Every  subheading  in  the  Discussion  should  read  as  a 

reason  for  the  truth  of  the  major  heading  immedi- 
ately above  it. 

3.  Whenever  a  concession  is  to  be  made  in  connection 

with  an  argument,  it  should  be  expressed  in  the  form 
of  a  subordinate  clause  attached  to  a  heading  or 
subheading;  but  it  should  not  itself  be  expressed 
as  a  separate  heading  or  subheading. 

4.  No  heading  to  be  proved  should  contain  any  part  of 

its  own  proof. 

5.  No  subheading  should  repeat  a  heading  above  it. 


228  Building  the  Case 

6.  All  chains  of  reasoning  should  be  developed  as  far  as, 

but  no  further  than,  the  evidence. 

7.  The  source  of  all  evidence  not  derived  from  common 

knowledge  should  be  noted  either  in  the  margin  or 
under  the  evidence. 

8.  All  proof  in  refutation  should  be  considered,  not  under 

a  separate  division  of  the  brief,  but  under  the  partic- 
ular issues  to  which  it  applies. 

9.  All  proof  in  refutation  should  be  so  phrased  that  it 

indicates  clearly  the  proof  to  be  refuted. 

Special  Rules  for  the  Conclusion 

1.  The  Conclusion  should  always  contain  a  summary  of 

the  main  points  in  the  Discussion. 

2.  The  Conclusion  should  always  contain  as  its  last  state- 

ment the  proposition  that  was  to  be  proved. 

Specimen  Brief.  —  To  provide  a  model  for  the  student  to 
follow  in  his  own  brief-making,  the  following  specimen  brief 
of  Burke's  case  on  Conciliation  is  given : 

A  Brief 

For  the  Affirmative 

of  the 
Proposition  of  Policy 

Resolved :  That  England  should  adopt  Burke's  policy  of 
conciliation  with  the  American  colonies. 

Introduction 

I.  Burke's   policy   of   conciliation   may  be   defined   as 
follows : 


Drawing  the  Brief  229 

A.  It  is  a  policy  to  restore  peace  in  America  by  com- 
plete concession  to  the  demands  of  the  colonists 
regarding  taxation. 

B.  This  policy  is  expressed  in  nine  resolutions  to  be 
enacted  by  Parliament. 

1.  None  of  these  resolutions  attempts  to  settle  the 
problem  involved  as  a  question  of  legal  right. 

2.  All  these  resolutions  are  intended  to  restore 
peace  by  admitting  the  colonies  to  an  inter- 
est in  the  British  Constitution. 

(a)    Six  of  these  resolutions  embody  the 
principal  part  of  the  plan. 
(I')   These  six  resolutions  establish  a 
fixed     policy    of    revenue    from 
America  by  voluntary  grants  of 
the  colonial  legislatures. 
(6)   The   remaining    three   resolutions   are 
corollaries  of  the  first  six. 
(I')    These  three  resolutions  repeal  all 
legislation  to  enforce  a  contrary 
policy, 
(c)   None  of  these  resolutions  admits  the 
colonies  to  an  interest  in  the  British 
Constitution  by  giving  them  represen- 
tation in  the  English  Parliament. 

C.  This  policy  differs  from  all  other  policies  in  the 
following  respects : 

1.  This  policy  does  not  involve  coercion  in  any 
form. 

2.  It  does  not  involve  concession  in  any  matters 
except  those  affecting  taxation. 

3.  It  does  not  involve  any  compromise  in  its 
concession. 


230  Building  the  Case 

II.   The  present  policy  of  dealing  with  the  colonies  in  the 
matter  of  taxation  may  be  defined  as  follows : 
A.  This  policy  has  been  one  of  coercion  to  enforce 
taxation  by  Parliament. 

1.  This  policy  has  involved  various  restrictive 
and  punitive  measures. 

(a)  It  has  attempted  to  restrict  the  commerce 
and  industries  of  the  colonies. 

(b)  It  has  attempted  to  suspend  the  operation 
of  government  in  the  colonies. 

(c)  It  has  provided  for  transporting  persons 
to  England  for  trial. 

B.   This  policy  differs  from  Burke's  policy  in  the 
following  respects : 

1 .  It  is  a  policy  of  coercion  rather  than  concession. 

2.  It  attempts  to  enforce  taxation  by  Parliament 
rather  than  to  authorize  taxation  by  colony 
grant. 

III.  Other  suggested  policies  for  dealing  with  the  colonies 
may  be  divided  into  two  groups:  namely,  those 
involving  more  vigorous  coercion  to  enforce  Parlia- 
mentary taxation;  and  those  involving  some  kind 
of  concession. 

A,  Suggested  policies  involving  more  vigorous  co- 
ercion are :  the  policy  of  resorting  to  war ;  and 
the  policy  of  further  restrictive  and  punitive 
measures. 
.  B.  Other  suggested  policies  involving  concession  of 
some  kind  are:  the  policy  of  granting  the 
colonies  their  independence;  and  Lord  North's 
compromise  plan. 

1.  Lord  North's  compromise  plan  may  be  defined 
as  follows : 


Drawing  the  Brief  231 

(a)    It  concedes  to  the  colonies  the  right  to 
raise   taxes   by  whatever   method   they 
choose;  but 
(6)    It  reserves  to  Parliament  the  right  to  fix 
the  total   sum   to  be  raised   by  all   the 
colonies  and  the  quota  that   should   be 
assigned  to  each. 
(c)   This   plan  differs  from  Burke's  plan  in 
the  following  respects : 
(I')    It  is  neither  a  plan  of  regular  taxa- 
tion by  Parliament,  nor  a  plan  of 
taxation  by  colony  grant. 
(II')    It  does  not  involve  complete  con- 
cession   to    the    demands    of    the 
colonists  regarding  taxation. 
(Ill')   It   does  involve  coercion  in  some 
form   to   compel    the   payment  of 
quotas. 
IV.  The  origin  and  history  of  the  case  are  as  follows : 

A.  The  colonies  have  resisted  all  attempts  to  collect 
taxes  levied  on  them  by  Parliament  without 
their  consent. 

B.  Their  resistance  has  developed  through  chronic 
disorder  and  tumult  into  a  state  of  almost  open 
revolt. 

C.  To  restore  peace,  Parliament  has  recently  ap- 
proved Lord  North's  compromise  plan. 

D.  Now  the  whole  question  of  American  policy  has 
come  up  again  in  an  aggravated  form ;  for 

1.  Further  savage  measures  to  crush  the  trade 
and  stop  the  fisheries  of  all  the  colonies  have 

.  been  passed  by  the  House  of  Lords  and  sent 
to  the  Commons  for  their  approval. 


232  Building  the  Case 

E.  Various  explanations  have  been  offered  for  the 
stubborn  spirit  of  resistance  among  the  colonies : 

1.  One  explanation  is  that  this  spirit  is  due  only 
to  their  grievances  in  the  matter  of  taxation. 

2.  Another  is  that  this  spirit  is  due  to  a  desire 
to  throw  off  all  the  trade  laws  enacted  by 
Parliament. 

3.  Another  is  that  it  is  due  to  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  colonies  for  their  independence. 

F.  Various  plans  for  solving  the  general  problem  have 
been  advanced. 

1.  One  is  that  this  problem  should  be  settled  as 
a  question  of  legal  right. 

2.  Another  is  that  the  colonies  should  simply 
be  punished  for  their  stubbornness. 

3.  Another  is  to  force  submission  to  taxation  by 
Parliament  by  making  war  on  the  colonies. 

4.  Another  is  to  force  submission  to  taxation  by 
Parliament  by  further  restrictive  and  punitive 
measures. 

5.  Other  plans  involve  some  kind  of  concession  : 

(a)  One  is  to  give  the  colonies  their  independ- 
ence. 

(b)  Another  is  to  give  the  colonies  representa- 
tion in  Parliament. 

(c)  Another  is  Lord  North's  compromise  plan. 

G.  Some  fixed  policy  of  dealing  with  America  must 
soon  be  established ;  for 

1.  The  people  are  becoming  restive  under  the 
many  shiftings  of  the  ministry ;  for 
(a)   They  realize  the  importance  of  peace ;  for 
(I')   The  colonies  have  been  a  great  source 
of  strength  to  England ;  but 


Drawing  the  Brief  233 

(IF)   In  the  recent  tumults  and  disorders 
they  have  become  a  great  source  of 
weakness. 
H.  To  restore  peace  permanently  Burke  now  proposes 

a  policy  of  conciliation. 
I.   Burke  is  accused  of  being  a  mere  obstructionist 
opposing  the  ministry  because  he  belongs  to  the 
minority  in  Parliament. 
V.   In  the  present  controversy,   the  following  matters 
are  wholly  irrelevant : 

A.  All  argument  against  Burke  personally  is  irrele- 
vant ;   for 

1.   Such  argument  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
merits  of  his  proposition. 

B.  All  argument  concerning  whether  the  spirit  of 
resistance  among  the  colonists  deserves  praise  or 
blame  is  irrelevant ;  for 

1.   Such  argument  does  not  touch  the  problem 
of  what  shall  be  done  with  this  spirit. 

C.  All  argument  concerning  this  problem  as  if  it  were 
a  question  of  legal  right  is  irrelevant ;  for 

1.  The  question  is  not:    What  has  Parliament  a 
right  to  do  ?    but 

2.  It    is    rather:   What  is   most  expedient    for 
Parliament  to  do  in  order  to  restore  peace  ? 

D.  All  argument  directed  against  a  system  of  colonial 
representation  is  irrelevant ;  for 

1.   Such  a  system  is  not  contemplated  in  Burke's 
policy  of  admitting  the  colonies  to  an  interest 
in  the  British  Constitution. 
VI.   Admitted  matter  in  the  case  is  as  follows : 

A.  That  there  is  a  state  of  almost  open  revolt  in 
America  is  matter  of  common  knowledge. 


234  Building  the  Case 

B.  That  the  tumults  and  disorders  in  America  have 
made  the  colonies  a  great  source  of  weakness  to 
England  is  matter  of  common  knowledge. 

C.  That  the  colonists  have  grievances  has  been 
admitted  in  resolutions  passed  by  Parliament. 

D.  That  the  mode  of  taxing  the  colonists  is  a  griev- 
ance has  been  partly  admitted  by  the  approval 
given  to  Lord  North's  plan. 

E.  That  conciliation  is  admissible  previous  to  sub- 
mission by  America  is  also  admitted  by  the  ap- 
proval given  to  Lord  North's  plan. 

F.  That  no  policy  should  be  adopted  that  destroys 
all  prospect  of  revenue  from  America  is  admitted 
by  both  sides. 

G.  That  no  policy  should  be  adopted  that  gives  the 
colonies  their  independence  is  admitted  by  both 

Asides. 
H.  That  no  policy  should  be  adopted  that  destroys 

the  unity  of  the   empire  is  admitted   by  both 

sides. 
J.  That  no  policy  should  be  adopted  that  violates 

the  Constitution  is  admitted  by  both  sides. 
VII.   The  main  issues  in  the  case  are : 

A.  Is  some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation 
necessary  to  restore  peace  in  America  ? 

B.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  restore  peace 
in  America  ? 

C.  Would  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  introduce 
new  and  worse  evils  ? 

D.  Would  any  other  policy  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  ? 

VIII.  The  main  points  that  the  Affirmative  in  this  case  will 
try  to  uphold  are  that : 


Drawing  the  Brief  235 

A.  Some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation 
is  necessary  to  restore  peace  in  America. 

B.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  restore  peace 
in  America. 

C.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  intro- 
duce new  and  worse  evils. 

D.  No  other  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation. 

Discussion 

I.   Some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation  is 
necessary  to  restore  peace  in  America ;  for 
A.   The  present   tumults  and    disorders  in  America 
are  due  to  the  previous  policy  of  coercing  the 
colonies  to  enforce  taxation  by  Parliament ;  for 

1.  The  question  of  taxation  without  representa- 
tion has  been  publicly  avowed  by  the  colonies 
to  be  the  origin  of  the  dispute ;   and 

2.  The  contention  that  the  dispute  with  the 
colonies  has  arisen  from  their  dislike  of  the 
trade  laws  is  without  foundation ;  for 

(a)  The  dispute  over  taxation  preceded  any 
dispute  over  the  trade  laws  ;     and 

(b)  The  trade  laws  cannot  be  alleged  to  be 
the  origin  of  the  dispute  until  the  tax  laws 
have  been  repealed  to  show  the  operation 
of  the  trade  laws  alone. 

II.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  restore  peace 

in  America ;  for 

A.  Burke's  policy  satisfies  the  complaint  of  the 
colonies  that  they  are  taxed  without  representa- 
tion; 


236  Building  the  Case 

B.  It  admits  the  colonies  to  an  interest  in  the  British 
Constitution;  for 

1 .  It  gives  them  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant ; 
and 

C.  The  policy  of  admitting  peoples  to  an  interest  in 
the  British  Constitution  has  restored  peace  in 
four  similar  instances ;  for 

1.  Peace  was  restored  in  Ireland  by  admitting 
the  people  of  Ireland  to  an  interest  in  the 
British  Constitution ;  for 

(a)  Before  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant 
was  bestowed  on  the  whole  of  Ireland,  the 
English  tried  without  success  for  five 
hundred  years  to  subdue  the  island  ;  but 

(6)  Since  this  privilege  was  bestowed,  Ireland 
has  become  pacified. 

2.  Peace  was  restored  in  Wales  also  by  admitting 
the  people  of  Wales  to  an  interest  in  the 
British  Constitution ;  for 

(a)  Before  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant 
was  bestowed  on  Wales,  the  English  tried 
without  success  for  two  hundred  years 
to  subdue  this  district ;   for 

(I')    In  this  period  they  tried   in  vain 

to  disarm  the  Welsh ; 
(II')   They  tried  in  vain  to  drag  Welsh 

offenders  to  England  for  trial ; 
(III')   They  tried  in  vain  to  restrain  the 

trade  of  the  Welsh ;   and 
(IV)   The  only  result  of  these  measures 

was  chronic  tumult  and  disorder ;  but 

(b)  Since  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant 
was  bestowed,  Wales  has  become  pacified. 


Drawing  the  Brief  237 

3.  Peace  was  restored  in  the  County  Palatine  of 
Chester  by  the  same  means ;   and 

4.  Peace  was  restored  in  the  County  Palatine  of 
Durham  also  by  the  same  means. 

D.  The  argument  that  peace  will  not  be  restored 
by  satisfying  the  complaints  of  the  colonies  on 
taxation  because  they  will   go  further  in  their 
complaints  is  fallacious ;  for 
1.    It  assumes  that  the  fewer  the  causes  are  for 
dissatisfaction,  the    more   the   subject  is   in- 
clined to  rebel. 
III.   Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  introduce  new 
and  worse  evils ;  for 

A.  The  argument  that  it  would  result  in  a  loss  of 
revenue  from  America  is  unfounded ;  for 
1.   Experience  has  shown  that  a  system  of  taxa- 
tion by  voluntary  grants  produces  the  richest 
revenue ;    for 

(a)  This  has  been  the  experience  in  England ; 

(b)  It  has  been  the  experience  in  Ireland ;   and 

(c)  It  has  been  the  experience,  hitherto,  in  the 
colonies;  for 

(I')  Parliament  has  repeatedly  acknowl- 
edged large  grants  from  the  colo- 
nies.— 

Journals  of  Parliament  — 
Vol.  XXVII ;  May  16  and  19, 1757. 
Vol.  XXVIII ;  June  1, 1758 ;  April 
26  and  30,  1759 ;  March  26  and 
31,  April  28, 1760 ;  January  9  and 
20,  1761. 

Vol.  XXIX;  January  22  and  26, 
1762 ;  March  14  and  17,  1763. 


238  Building  the  Case 

2.  It  is  natural  for  subjects  to  give  lavishly  when 
they  have  the  power  of  refusal ;  for 

(a)   Patriotism  leads  to  lavish  grants. 
(6)   The  desire  for  protection  of  property  leads 
to  lavish  grants. 

(c)  Prosperity  leads  to  lavish  grants. 

(d)  The  rivalry  of  parties  for  favors  from  the 
head  of  the  government  leads  to  lavish 
grants. 

3.  Even  if  America  does  not  contribute  greatly 
to  English  revenue  by  direct  grants  —  she 
will  contribute  by  her  goodwill  expressed  in 
trade. 

B.  The  argument  that  Burke's  policy  would  result 
in  a  demand  for  a  repeal  of  the  trade  laws  is 
unfounded;  for 

1 .  This  argument  is  based  on  mere  conjecture ;  and 

2.  The  avowed  complaint  of  the  colonies  extends 
only  to  taxation  without  representation. 

C.  Even  if  the  trade  laws  were  repealed  —  this  would 
not  be  injurious  to  England  ;  for 

1.  The  ministry  has  admitted  that  the  trade 
laws  are  futile  and  useless ;  and 

2.  The  only  excuse  for  maintaining  the  useless 
trade  laws  is  to  safeguard  a  system  of  useless 
and  mischievous  tax  laws. 

D.  The  argument  that  concession  of  liberty  in  the 
matter  of  taxation  will  result  in  further  conces- 
sions applying  to  all  legislative  authority  exer- 
cised by  Parliament  is  unfounded ;  for 

1.  Only  in  periods  of  excitement  have  the  Ameri- 
cans demanded  anything  more  than  relief 
from  taxation  by  Parliament ;  and 


Drawing  the  Brief  239 

2.  It  is  unfair  to  judge  what  they  will  do  in  a 
cool  hour,  by  what  they  have  done  in  the 
heat  of  excitement. 

3.  The  Americans  also  are  not  likely  to  pursue  a 
principle  to  all  its  logical  conclusions  against 
their  own  interest ;  for 

(a)  They  are  like  Englishmen ;  and 

(b)  Englishmen  have  seldom  pursued  a  prin- 
ciple for  its  own  sake  against  their  own 
interest. 

4.  When  Americans  have  been  granted  freedom 
graciously  by  Parliament  in  one  respect,  they 
will  be  more  likely  to  respect  the  authority 
and  wisdom  of  its  superintending  legislation 
in  other  respects. 

E.  The  argument  that  Burke's  policy  would  destroy 
the  unity  of  the  empire  is  also  unfounded ;  for 

1.  This  unity  does  not  demand  that  the  English 
Parliament  be  the  only  legislative  authority  in 
the  empire. 

2.  It  demands  only  that  the  English  Parliament 
be  superior  to  other  parliaments  as  in  the 
case   of   Ireland;  and 

3.  Since  Ireland  has  had  its  parliament  with  the 
power  of  grant,  no  question  has  ever  been 
raised  about  the  unity  of  the  empire. 

F.  The  argument  that  Burke's  policy  would  violate 
the  Constitution  because  it  is  not  founded  on 
precedent  is  false ;  for 

1.  Throughout  a  century  the  British  govern- 
ment has  accepted  grants  from  the  colonial 
assemblies;  and 


240  Building  the  Case 

2.   The  British  government  has  uniformly  accepted 
grants  from  the  parliament  in  Ireland. 
IV.   No  other  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation ;  for 

A.  The  policy  of  resorting  to  war  would  not  be  more 
satisfactory;  for 

1.  Peace  established  by  war  is  only  temporary. 

2.  The  outcome  of  war  is  always  uncertain. 

3.  There  is  no  example  of  success  in  ruling  colo- 
nies by  force  of  arms. 

4.  War  would  simply  impair  the  value  of  the 
colonies  to  England. 

B.  A  policy  of  further  restrictive  and  punitive  meas- 
ures would  not  be  more  satisfactory ;  for 

1.  Such  measures  must  aim  either  to  remove  the 
causes  for  the  spirit  of  resistance  among  the 
colonists  or  to  prosecute  this  spirit  as  criminal 
in  its  overt  acts ;  and 

2.  Any  attempt  to  remove  the  causes  of  this  spirit 
would  be  either  impracticable  or  inexpedient ; 
for 

(a)  The  causes  of  this  spirit  are:  the  grow- 
ing population  of  the  colonies;  their 
commerce  and  industry;  their  English 
descent ;  their  popular  governments ;  their 
Protestant  religion  in  the  North;  their 
slave-system  in  the  South;  their  legal 
education;  and  their  remoteness  from 
the  mother  country, 

(6)  Any  attempt  to  check  their  population 
would  be  either  impracticable  or  inex- 
pedient; for 


Drawing  the  Brief  241 


xr^ 


(I')  If  we  refuse  further  land  grants, 
the  people  will  occupy  without 
grants;  and 
(II ;)  If  the  people  occupy  without 
grants,  they  will  become  lawless; 
and 
(III')  If  they  become  lawless,  they  will 
eventually  destroy  our  government 
in  the  colonies. 

(c)  Any  attempt  to  destroy  their  commerce 
and  industry  would  be  inexpedient ;  for 

(I')    Such  an  attempt  would  make  the 

colonies  useless  to  us ;   and 
(II')    It   might  lead   them   to  join   our 
enemies  to  bring  about  our  ruin. 

(d)  Nothing   can   be   done   to    change   their 
English  descent. 

(e)  Any   attempt    to   destroy   their   popular 
government  would  be  impracticable ;  for 

(I')   When  the  authorized  government  in 
Virginia  was  withheld,  the  colonists 
established  their  own  government; 
and 
(II')   When  the  same  thing  was  done  in 
Massachusetts,  the  people  governed 
themselves  without  assistance. 
(/)   Any  attempt  to  destroy  their  Protestant 
religion  in  the  North  would  be  imprac- 
ticable; for 

(I')  The  mode  of  the  Inquisition  and 
dragooning  has  gone  out  of  fashion 
even  in  the  Old  World. 


242  Building  the  Case 

(g)  Any  attempt  to  crush  the  high  spirit  of 
the  South  by  liberating  the  slaves  against 
their  masters  would  be  both  impracticable 
and  inexpedient ;  for 

(10   The  slaves  might  not  accept  their 
freedom  from  us ;  for 
(A')   They   are   often   attached   to 

their  masters ;  and 
(Z?0   They  would   suspect  an  offer 
of  freedom  from  us ;   for 
(10    We  sold  them  into  slav- 
ery. 
(II 0    If  we  liberate  the  slaves  against  the 
colonists,    the    colonists    may    arm 
them  against  us. 
(h)   Any     attempt    to    destroy    their     legal 
education  would  be  impracticable;  for 
(10   We  cannot  persuade  them  to  burn 

their  law  books ; 
(II 0   We  cannot  persuade  them  to  ban- 
ish their  lawyers ;  and 
(III')   We  cannot  persuade  them  to  choose 
uneducated  leaders. 
(i)   Nothing  can  be  done  to  change  the  remote- 
ness  of   the   colonies   from   the   mother- 
country. 
3.  Any  attempt  to  prosecute  the  spirit  of  the 
colonies  in  its  overt  acts  is  either  inapplicable 
or  inexpedient ;  for 

(a)    It  is  impossible  to  apply  ideas  of  ordinary 
criminal  justice  to  a  public  contest ;  for 
(10    It  is  impossible  to  draw  an  indict- 
ment against  a  whole  people ;  and 


Drawing  the  Brief  243 

(II')  When  one  part  of  an  empire  claims 
a  privilege  from  the  head  of  the 
empire,  it  does  not  commit  a  crime ; 
for 

(A')   By    claiming    a    right    as    a 
privilege,   it   expressly   recog- 
nizes superior  authority. 
(Ill')    In  this  case  we  cannot  act  as  ordi- 
nary judges ;  for 

(A')    We  are  both  judges  and  par- 
ties in  the  controversy. 
(b)   Under  present  circumstances,  it  would  be 
inexpedient  to  resort  to  criminal  proceed- 
ings; for 

(I')   We  have  placed  the  colonists  in  a 
position  resembling  that  of  a  hos- 
tile independent  power,  rather  than 
that  of  rebellious  subjects. 
Lord   North's  compromise  plan  of  taxation  by 
quotas  would  not  be  more  satisfactory ;  for 
1.   It  will  not  restore  peace;  for 

(a)  It  is  a  mere  experiment ;  for 

(I')   There  is  no  precedent  for  it ;  for 

(Af)   It  is  not  regular  taxation  by 

Parliament;  and 
(Bf)    It  is   not  taxation  by  colony 
grant. 

(b)  It  does  not  satisfy  the  complaints  of  the 
colonies;  for 

(I')    They  demand  exemption  from  tax- 
ation by  Parliament. 
(II')    This   gives   them  taxation  by  Par- 
liament in  disguise ;  for 


244  Building  the  Case 

{A')   It   provides   that   Parliament 
shall   fix   the  total   sum   and 
the  quotas  to  be  raised. 
(B')   This    plan    cannot    guarantee 
even     that     Parliament    will 
not   interfere    in   the  method 
chosen  for  raising  taxes;    for 
(1')    Parliament  would  never 
permit    a    colonial    im- 
port   duty    on    English 
manufactures, 
(c)    It  will  promote  civil  discord ;  for 

(10  Lord  North,  himself,  admits  this. 
(II')  Each  colony  will  struggle  against 
every  other  colony  to  get  an  easier 
quota  in  the  assignments  made  by 
Parliament;  and 
(III')  If  any  colony  refuses  to  pay  its 
quota,  then  England  must  collect 
it  by  force  of  arms. 

2.  This  experiment  will  prove  fatal  to  the  British 
Constitution;  for 

(a)   It  will  establish  a  system  of  taxation  by 
the  ministry ;  for 

(I')  The  House  of  Commons  could  not 
hear  all  the  claims  of  the  colonies 
about  their  proper  quotas  without 
giving  up  all  other  business. 

3.  This  experiment  will  overwhelm  the  ministry 
with  perplexing  problems ;  for 

(a)   The   quotas   never   can   be   settled    per- 
manently ; 


Drawing  the  Brief  245 

(b)  Every  alteration  in  quotas  will  require 
months  of  negotiation. 

(c)  If  any  colony  refuses  to  pay  its  quota, 
then  taxes  must  be  laid  by  Parliament 
in  such  a  w^y  as  to  prevent  injury  to 
British  trade ;  and 

(d)  In  case  of  refusal  also,  new  schemes  for 
coercion  must  be  invented. 

4.   This  experiment  will  bring  you  no  revenue; 
for 

(a)  It  is  based  on  taxation  by  imposition; 
and 

(b)  Taxation  by  imposition  is  not  likely  to 
succeed  in  remote  countries ;  for 

(I7)  British  experience  with  this  form  of 
taxation  in  Bengal  has  proved  that 
it  is  not  likely  to  succeed. 

Conclusion 

I.   The  Affirmative  in  this  case  has  proved  the  following 
points : 

A.  Some  change  from  the  present  policy  of  taxation  is 
necessary  to  restore  peace  in  America ; 

B.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  restore  peace 
in  America ; 

C.  Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  not  introduce 
new  and  worse  evils ;  and 

D.  No  other  policy  would  be  more  satisfactory  than 
Burke's  policy  of  conciliation. 

II.   The    Affirmative    maintains,   therefore,   that    it   has 
established  the  proposition : 

A.   That  England  should  adopt  Burke's  policy  of  con- 
ciliation with  the  American  colonies. 


PART  IV.     MAKING  THE   PLEA 

CHAPTER  I 
CONVICTION  » 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  In  the  preceding  main  divisions 
of  this  text  an  attempt  has  been  made :  First,  under  the 
general  title,  Beginning  Principles,  to  give  the  student  suffi- 
cient theory  to  enable  him  to  begin  intelligently  the  practice 
of  debate ;  second,  under  the  general  title,  Elements  of  Proof, 
to  give  him  a  thorough  understanding  of  all  the  elements  of 
proof  that  must  be  used  in  debate;  and  third,  under  the 
general  title,  Building  the  Case,  to  show  how  these  various 
elements  of  proof  should  be  assembled  into  a  case.  The 
purpose  of  the  fourth  and  last  main  division  of  the  text  must 
be,  therefore,  to  set  forth  the  principles  governing  the  most 
effective  presentation  of  a  case  under  the  general  title,  Mak- 
ing the  Plea. 

This  part  of  the  text  will  develop :  First,  the  subject  of 
conviction  in  debate;  second,  the  subject  of  persuasion  in 
debate ;  third,  the  subject  of  speech-composition  in  debate  i 
and  fourth,  the  subject  of  strategy  in  debate. 

Importance  of  Conviction  in  Debate.  —  Conviction  is  one 
of  the  most  important  processes  that  must  be  used  in  debate ; 
for  the  only  object  in  debate  is  to  create  or  destroy  belief 
in  a  proposition ;  and  this  object  may  be  accomplished  only 
by  means  of  the  twofold  process  of  conviction  and  persuasion. 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Conviction,  see  Appendix  A. 


Conviction  247 

Definition  of  Conviction  and  Persuasion.  —  Conviction 
is  a  process  by  which  one  is  made  to  believe  a  proposition  by 
seeing  and  understanding  its  truth;  and  persuasion  is  a 
process  by  which  one  is  made  to  believe  a  proposition  by 
feeling  and  appreciating  its  truth. 

Conviction  is  a  process  that  appeals  to  reason  in  order  to 
get  understanding ;  and  persuasion  is  a  process  that  appeals 
to  the  emotions  in  order  to  get  action. 

To  be  more  specific :  Conviction  is  a  process  by  which  the 
validity  of  all  the  proof  in  a  case  is  made  clear  to  the  hearer ; 
and  persuasion  is  a  process  by  which  all  the  proof  in  a  case  is 
provided  with  interest  and  a  motive  for  its  acceptance. 

Conviction  is  a  process,  therefore,  that  strives  for  clear- 
ness in  proof,  and  persuasion  is  a  process  that  strives  to  arouse 
interest  and  produce  action. 

Principles  of  Conviction.  —  The  various  means  by  which 
the  process  of  conviction  secures  clearness  for  the  proof  in  a 
case  are  embodied  in  the  rhetorical  principles  of : 

1.  Unity; 

2.  Coherence;  and 

3.  Emphasis. 

Value  of  the  Brief  in  Securing  Conviction.  —  No  better 
method  for  securing  these  qualities  of  unity,  coherence,  and 
emphasis  in  the  preparation  of  a  case  can  be  devised,  than 
the  method  of  assembling  proof  in  a  brief  according  to  the 
rules  laid  down  for  that  subject  in  the  preceding  chapter ; * 
because,  in  a  carefully  constructed  brief,  every  phase  of  the 
case  is  kept  as  a  distinct  unit ;  the  relation  of  each  point  in 
the  proof  to  every  other  point  is  made  clear,  showing  the 
coherence  of  the  whole  case;    and  every  point  deserving 

1  See  pages  226-228, 


248  Making  the  Plea 

emphasis  is  made  conspicuous  by  the  system  of  headings, 
subheadings,  indentation,  numbering,  and  lettering. 

Inadequacy  of  the  Brief  for  Securing  Conviction.  —  Per- 
fect clearness  for  the  case  should  be  secured  by  means  of  the 
brief,  but  unfortunately  the  brief  cannot  be  used  in  debate 
for  the  presentation  of  the  case.  To  present  a  case,  the 
debater  must  rely  upon  a  speech,  delivered  not  in  headings 
and  subheadings,  but  in  paragraphs  embodying  the  substance 
of  the  headings  and  subheadings.  Under  the  principles  of 
conviction,  therefore,  the  debater  must  learn  how  to  pre- 
serve in  his  speech  those  qualities  of  unity,  coherence,  and 
emphasis,  that  have  given  clearness  to  his  brief. 

I.   Unity 

Value  of  Unity.  —  Because  no  man  can  think  clearly  on 
two  problems  at  the  same  time,  no  quality  in  thought  or 
composition  is  more  valuable  than  unity.  If  a  speech  is  to 
be  perfectly  clear,  therefore,  it  must  possess  unity  as  a  whole, 
unity  in  its  main  divisions,  unity  in  its  paragraphs,  and  unity 
in  its  sentences. 

Unity  of  the  Speech  as  a  Whole.  —  The  unity  of  an  entire 
speech  in  debate  consists  in  its  having  a  single,  central 
purpose  that  runs  through  every  one  of  its  parts.  This 
single,  central  purpose  is  always  to  create  or  destroy  belief 
in  a  definite  proposition  by  making  others  see  and  feel  its 
truth  or  its  falsity. 

To  secure  unity  in  an  entire  speech,  a  debater  must  choose 
a  single  proposition  for  its  subject  and  then  stick  to  this 
subject  throughout  the  speech,  allowing  no  deviation  from 
the  single,  central  purpose  of  creating  or  destroying  belief 
in  its  truth.     When  the  speech  is  complete,  the  debater  him- 


Conviction  249 

self  may  test  it  for  unity  by  seeing  whether  each  of  its  parts 
tends  to  make  others  either  see  or  feel  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  proposition. 

Tendencies  in  speech-making  that  destroy  the  unity  of  an 
entire  speech  are  usually  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  speaker 
to  air  his  knowledge  on  other  problems  than  the  one  specified 
in  the  proposition ;  to  entertain  his  audience  with  irrelevant 
wit  or  flights  of  fancy ;  and  to  indulge  in  abuse  of  his  oppo- 
nents, praise  of  himself,  or  flattery  of  his  audience.  These 
tendencies,  of  course,  betray  a  desire  that  is  utterly  foreign 
to  the  single,  central  purpose  of  creating  or  destroying  belief 
in  a  definite  proposition ;  and  they  must,  therefore,  be  held 
in  check ;  because  they  destroy  the  unity  and  the  clearness 
of  the  speech  as  a  whole. 

Unity  in  the  Main  Divisions  of  the  Speech.  —  The  unity 
of  the  main  divisions  of  a  speech,  like  the  unity  of  the  speech 
as  a  whole,  consists  in  each  division's  having  a  single,  central 
purpose  that  runs  through  every  one  of  its  parts. 

The  single,  central  purpose  of  the  Introduction  must  always 
be  to  make  others  see  and  feel  the  exact  nature  of  the  prop- 
osition that  they  are  asked  to  believe  or  disbelieve,  in  its  re- 
lation to  all  facts  and  circumstances  associated  with  the  case. 

The  single,  central  purpose  of  the  Discussion  must  always 
be  to  make  others  see  and  feel  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
proposition  by  means  of  proof  that  connects  the  proposition 
with  facts  already  within  the  knowledge  or  experience  of  the 
hearers. 

The  single,  central  purpose  of  the  Conclusion  must  always 
be  to  make  others  see  and  feel  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
proposition  by  recapitulating  the  main  points  of  the  proof 
and  by  associating  these  main  points  with  strong  motives 
for  their  acceptance. 


250  Making  the  Plea 

Under  these  three  main  divisions  of  a  speech,  the  debater 
himself  may  test  his  work  for  unity  by  seeing  whether  every 
subordinate  part  contributes  to  the  single,  central  purpose 
of  the  whole. 

Unity  in  the  Paragraphs  of  the  Speech.  —  The  unity  of 
paragraphs  within  a  speech  is  just  as  important  as  the  unity 
of  the  speech  as  a  whole  and  the  unity  of  its  main  divisions ; 
for  the  speech  is  nothing  more  than  a  series  of  paragraphs 
each  of  which  develops  or  proves  some  subordinate  proposi- 
tion that  helps  the  audience  to  see  or  feel  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  the  main  proposition.  If,  therefore,  the  various  para- 
graphs are  not  clear  from  lack  of  unity,  the  whole  speech 
is  likely  to  be  confused. 

To  secure  unity  in  the  paragraphs  of  a  speech,  a  debater 
should  introduce  or  conclude  each  paragraph  with  a  prop- 
osition that  is  developed  or  proved  by  the  material  within 
the  paragraph  itself. 

Almost  all  such  opening  or  closing  sentences  for  paragraphs 
may  be  taken  directly  from  the  more  important  headings  of 
the  debater's  brief. 

Unity  in  the  Sentences  of  the  Speech.  —  A  speech  is 
composed,  not  only  of  a  series  of  paragraphs,  but  also  of  a 
much  longer  series  of  sentences.  Every  idea  in  the  speech 
must  be  expressed  by  some  sort  of  sentence ;  and,  hence,  it 
is  important  that  the  sentences  of  a  speech,  like  every  other 
one  of  its  component  parts,  should  possess  unity  for  the  sake 
of  clearness. 

No  sentence  possesses  unity  and  clearness,  however,  if 
it  consists  of  a  series  of  unrelated  ideas  connected  by  such 
words  as  and  and  but.  To  make  sure,  therefore,  that  each 
sentence  in  a  speech  possesses  unity,  a  debater  should  take 


Conviction  251 

pains  to  see  that  it  contains  but  one  idea,  or  several  related 
ideas  so  that  together  they  really  make  only  one  central  idea. 

II.     Coherence 

Value  of  Coherence.  —  The  second  quality  of  clearness 
that  is  necessary  to  conviction  in  a  speech  is  the  quality  of 
coherence.  This  quality  differs  from  unity,  in  that  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  singleness  of  purpose  in  the  speech 
as  a  whole  or  in  any  of  its  parts ;  but  has  to  do  rather  with  the 
connections  between  its  parts  that  make  it  cohere  or  hang 
together  as  a  whole. 

This  quality  is  quite  as  important  for  clearness  and  con- 
viction as  is  the  quality  of  unity ;  for,  no  matter  how  admi- 
rable a  speech  may  be  from  the  standpoint  of  unity,  if  there 
is  no  apparent  connection  between  its  parts,  it  must  fail  in 
the  end  to  make  clear  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition 
that  serves  as  its  subject. 

General  Requirements  of  Coherence.  —  The  quality  of 
coherence  in  a  speech  is  one  that  demands :  First,  a  logical 
sequence  in  the  arrangement  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
speech ;  and  second,  the  use  of  proper  transitions  to  indicate 
the  connection  between  these  parts. 

Value  of  Sequence  for  Coherence.  —  Unless  all  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  a  speech  follow  easily  and  naturally  from  what 
precedes,  then  the  speech  as  a  whole  cannot  hang  together. 
Coherence  in  a  speech  demands,  therefore,  a  logical  sequence 
in  the  arrangement  of  all  its  parts. 

Laws  of  Sequence  for  Coherence.  —This  logical  sequence 
may  be  established  to  a  great  extent  by  the  order  of  points 
as  they  appear  in  a  brief;   but,  since  some  deviation  from 


252  Making  the  Plea 

this  order  is  often  desirable,  it  is  important  that  the  student 
should  know  some  of  the  general  laws  of  logical  sequence. 
These  laws  may  be  considered  under  the  following  titles : 

1 .  Sequence  from  More  Familiar  to  Less  Familiar ; 

2.  Sequence  of  Time ; 

3.  Sequence  of  Points  from  Definition ;  and 

4.  Sequence  of  Points  from  a  Chain  of  Reasoning. 

Sequence  from  the  More  Familiar  to  the  Less  Familiar.  — 

A  sequence  of  points  from  the  more  familiar  to  the  less 
familiar  always  characterizes  a  speech  as  a  whole  when  it  is 
arranged  so  that  it  has  a  distinct  Introduction,  Discussion, 
and  Conclusion. 

This  sequence,  also,  always  characterizes  a  good  Intro- 
duction; and  may  under  some  circumstances  characterize 
the  Discussion. 

According  to  this  sequence,  a  speech  arranged  in  the 
old  classical  fashion  will  contain  the  following  main  divisions 
and  subdivisions : 

I.    Introduction 

A.  Appeal  for  Interest  in  the  General  Problem 

B.  Narration  of  Facts  Giving  Rise  to  the  Problem 

C.  Statement    of    Proposition    Alleged    to    Solve 

Problem 

D.  Definition  of  Proposition  as  It  Applies  to  the 

Problem 

E.  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant,  Admitted,  and  Waived 

Matter  from  Consideration  in  Problem 

F.  Partition  of  Problem  in  Points  Demanding  Proof 
II.    Discussion 

A.   Constructive  Proof  of  Proposition  for  Solution  of 
Problem 


Conviction  253 

B.   Refutation  Necessary  for  Solution  of  Problem 
III.    Conclusion 

A.  Summary  of  Proof  for  Solution  of  Problem 

B.  Appeal  to  Motives  for  Accepting  Proof  to  Solve 

Problem 

In  the  outline  of  parts  given  above,  the  sequence  of  points 
in  the  Introduction  is  very  obviously  from  the  more  familiar 
to  the  less  familiar ;  and  this  same  sequence  may  be  followed 
in  the  Discussion,  if  evidence  is  presented  before  any  conclu- 
sion is  derived  from  it;  but  the  more  usual  sequence 
for  the  Discussion  is  the  reverse  order  in  which  a  conclu- 
sion or  main  point  is  stated  before  the  evidence  applying  to  it. 

A  sequence  from  the  more  familiar  to  the  less  familiar 
within  the  Discussion,  that  is,  from  the  evidence  to  the 
main  points,  is  employed  usually  only  when  there  is  great 
hostility  to  the  proposition  in  the  audience,  which  makes 
necessary  a  gradual  leading-up  to  the  proposition  throughout 
the  whole  speech. 

Sequence  of  Time.  —  A  second  type  of  sequence  that  may 
be  adopted  for  the  arrangement  of  ideas  in  a  speech  is  a 
sequence  according  to  time ;  that  is,  a  sequence  that  arranges 
facts  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence  from  past  to  present 
to  future ;  or  vice  versa,  from  future  to  present  to  past. 

This  sequence  is  one  that  lends  itself  particularly  to  Nar- 
ration, which  must  be  used  in  the  Introduction;  but  it  is 
equally  valuable  in  Description,  which  must  be  used,  also, 
at  times,  not  only  in  the  Introduction,  but  in  other  parts  of 
the  speech  as  well. 

The  sequence  of  time  in  Description  demands  a  presenta- 
tion of  ideas  concerning  objects  according  to  the  order  in 
which  the  eye,  or  other  senses,  would  discover  them.     This 


254  Making  the  Plea 

order  is  usually  either  from  large  details  to  small  details ; 
or  from  near  details  to  distant  details,  or  vice  versa.  If,  to 
describe  an  object,  a  person  must  assume  various  points  of 
view,  then  these  points  of  view  will  be  arranged,  also,  as  the 
person  would  naturally  progress  from  one  to  another. 

Sequence  of  Points  from  a  Definition.  —  A  third  common 
type  of  sequence  that  may  be  adopted  in  a  speech  is  a  sequence 
of  points  according  to  the  way  in  which  these  points  are 
suggested  by  the  different  parts  of  a  definition. 

This  type  of  sequence  is  particularly  valuable  in  Exposition, 
which  must  be  used  in  the  Introduction  of  a  speech,  and  also 
in  the  proof  of  categorical  propositions  of  fact.1 

An  illustration  of  this  sequence  may  be  given  in  the  order 
of  points  that  would  be  used  to  prove  a  charge  of  burglary. 
The  term  burglary  means  breaking  and  entering  at  night  the 
dwelling  house  of  another  with  felonious  intent.  The  order 
of  points  suggested  by  this  definition  would  be  :  First,  that  a 
person  broke ;  second,  that  he  entered ;  third,  that  he  broke 
and  entered  at  night;  fourth,  that  he  broke  and  entered  at 
night  into  a  house;  fifth,  that  the  house  was  a  dwelling; 
sixth,  that  it  was  the  dwelling  of  another;  and  seventh, 
that  the  breaking  and  entering  was  done  with  felonious  in- 
tent. 

Sequence  of  Points  from  a  Chain  of  Reasoning.  —  The 
fourth  common  type  of  sequence  that  may  be  adopted  in  a 
speech  is  a  sequence  of  points  as  they  appear  in  the  various 
chains  of  reasoning  in  a  brief.  This  sequence  may  be  either 
according  to  the  way  a  person  would  run  down  the  chain 
from  the  main  point  to  the  evidence  or  according  to  the 
way  in  which  he  would  run  up  the  chain  from  the  evidence 
to  the  main  point. 

1  See  pages  20-21,  77-78. 


Conviction  255 

In  running  down  a  chain  of  reasoning,1  material  would  be 
arranged  in  the  following  order : 

Burke's  policy  of  conciliation  would  restore  peace  in 
America;  for  it  admits  the  colonies  to  an  interest  in  the 
British  Constitution ;  inasmuch  as  it  gives  them  the  privilege 
of  taxation  by  grant ;  and,  whenever  the  policy  of  admitting 
peoples  to  an  interest  in  the  British  Constitution  has  been 
adopted,  it  has  produced  peace. 

An  example  of  the  effect  of  admitting  people  to  an  interest 
in  the  British  Constitution  is  found  in  the  case  of  Ireland ; 
for,  before  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant  was  bestowed 
on  the  whole  of  Ireland,  the  English  tried  without  success 
for  five  hundred  years  to  subdue  the  island ;  but,  since  this 
privilege  was  bestowed,  Ireland  has  become  pacified. 

This  same  material,  if  arranged  according  to  the  way  a 
person  would  run  up  a  chain  of  reasoning,  would  appear  as 
follows : 

For  five  hundred  years  before  England  gave  the  whole  of 
Ireland  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant,  she  tried  without 
success  to  subdue  the  island ;  but  since  she  has  bestowed  this 
privilege,  Ireland  has  become  pacified.  The  bestowal  of 
this  privilege  was  merely  an  admission  of  the  people  of  Ire- 
land to  an  interest  in  the  British  Constitution ;  and  hence, 
it  may  be  said  that  Ireland  was  pacified  by  being  admitted 
to  an  interest  in  the  British  Constitution. 

Ireland  presents  only  one  instance  of  this  effect  of  admit- 
ting people  to  an  interest  in  the  British  Constitution ;  but 
it  is  also  true  that,  whenever  this  policy  has  been  adopted, 
it  has  brought  peace  as  a  result.  If,  therefore,  we  admit 
the  colonies  to  an  interest  in  the  British  Constitution  by 

^ee  pages  31-33,  235-236. 


256  Making  the  Plea 

giving  them  the  privilege  of  taxation  by  grant,  they  too  will 
be  pacified.  This  is  exactly  what  Burke's  policy  of  concilia- 
tion proposes  to  do;  and,  hence,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
Burke's  policy  would  restore  peace  in  America. 

Value  of  Transitions  for  Coherence.  —  A  logical  sequence 
of  thought  in  a  speech  is  absolutely  essential  for  coherence ; 
but  when  this  sequence  has  been  established,  then  the  co- 
herence of  the  speech  may  be  greatly  increased,  if  each  of 
its  parts  is  connected  with  what  precedes  by  a  transitional 
sentence,  phrase,  or  word  that  shows  the  nature  of  the 
connection.  To  produce  perfect  coherence  in  a  speech,  these 
transitional  sentences,  phrases,  or  words  should  be  used  to 
introduce  each  successive  main  division  of  the  speech  and 
each  of  its  subordinate  parts. 

Transitions  to  Introduce  Main  Divisions  of  a  Speech.  — 
The  transitions  that  are  employed  to  introduce  main  divisions 
of  a  speech  usually  take  the  form  of  a  partition,1  or  a  sum- 
mary, or  a  summary  and  a  partition  combined. 

The  use  of  the  partition  as  a  transition  from  the  Intro- 
duction to  the  Discussion  of  a  speech  may  be  illustrated  from 
Burke's  speech  on  Conciliation.  In  this  speech,  the  Intro- 
duction ends,  and  the  Discussion  begins,  with  this  sentence 
in  the  form  of  a  partition  : 

"The  capital  leading  questions  on  which  you  must  this 
day  decide  are  these  two :  First,  whether  you  ought  to  con- 
cede ;  and  second,  what  your  concession  ought  to  be."  2 

The  use  of  the  summary  as  a  transition  from  the  Discus- 
sion to  the  Conclusion  may  also  be  illustrated  from  Burke's 
speech;  for,  after  maintaining  in  the  Discussion  that  Eng- 
land can  never  obtain  a  revenue  from  America  by  Parlia- 

1  See  pages  215,  217,  234-235. 

1  See  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  7. 


Conviction  257 

mentary  taxation,  Burke  enters  upon  his  Conclusion  with 
these  sentences  in  the  form  of  a  summary : 

"  For  that  service  —  for  all  service,  whether  of  revenue, 
trade,  or  empire  —  my  trust  is  in  her  interest  in  the  British 
Constitution.  My  hold  of  the  Colonies  is  in  the  close  affec- 
tion which  grows  from  common  names,  from  kindred  blood, 
from  similar  privileges,  and  equal  protection/ ' * 

The  use  of  the  summary  and  the  partition  combined,  as  a 
transition  from  one  main  point  in  the  Discussion  to  another 
main  point,  may  be  illustrated  from  Burke's  speech  again; 
for  in  this  speech  he  makes  the  following  summary  and 
partition  as  a  very  marked  transition : 

"  If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of  Ameri- 
can liberty  be  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  entirely,  im- 
practicable ;  if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process  be  inapplicable  — 
or,  if  applicable,  are  in  the  highest  degree  inexpedient; 
what  way  yet  remains?  No  way  is  open  but  the  third  and 
and  last,  —  to  comply  with  the  American  spirit  as  necessary ; 
or,  if  you  please,  to  submit  to  it  as  a  necessary  evil. 

"If  we  adopt  this  mode,  —  if  we  mean  to  conciliate  and 
concede,  —  let  us  see  of  what  nature  the  concession  ought  to 
be.  To  ascertain  the  nature  of  our  concession,  we  must  look 
at  their  complaint.  The  Colonies  complain  that  they  have 
not  the  characteristic  mark  and  seal  of  British  freedom. 
They  complain  that  they  are  taxed  in  a  Parliament  in  which 
they  are  not  represented.  If  you  mean  to  satisfy  them  at 
all,  you  must  satisfy  them  with  regard  to  this  complaint."  2 

Transitions  to  Introduce  Subordinate  Parts  of  a  Speech.  — 

Not  only  should  the  main  divisions  of  a  speech  be  tied  to- 
gether by  transitional  sentences,  phrases,  or  words  in  order 

1  See  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  71-72. 

2  See  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  35. 


258  Making  the  Plea 

to  produce  perfect  coherence;  but  so  should  all  the  sub- 
ordinate parts  as  well.  Every  paragraph  and  every  sentence, 
as  far  as  possible,  should  be  joined  to  what  precedes  with 
some  appropriate  transition. 

The  transitions  for  these  subordinate  parts  will  seldom  be  so 
long  and  formal  as  the  partitions  and  summaries  for  the  main 
divisions;  and  yet,  in  all  instances,  they  should  indicate 
clearly  the  nature  of  the  connection  that  exists  between  the 
parts.  This  connection  is  often  shown  merely  by  the  use 
of  nouns  and  pronouns  that  pick  up  and  carry  on  the  thought 
of  the  preceding  part ;  but  even  more  frequently  it  is  shown 
by  the  use  of  coordinate  and  subordinate  conjunctions  and 
various  adverbial  phrases. 

The  greatest  fault  in  transitions,  however,  against  which 
every  speaker  should  constantly  be  on  guard  is  the  monot- 
onous repetition  of  the  coordinate  conjunctions,  and,  but, 
and  or.  To  avoid  this  fault,  therefore,  the  speaker  should 
use  as  frequently  as  possible  such  subordinate  conjunctions 
and  adverbial  phrases  as  : 

For,  since,  because,  and  inasmuch  as;  on  this  account; 
thereby;  hence,  thus,  and  therefore;  so  that  and  in  order  to; 
namely,  such  as,  to  illustrate,  for  example,  and  as  follows; 
of  course,  though,  although,  and  even  though;  moreover,  yet, 
however,  and  nevertheless ;  similarly,  whereas,  on  the  contrary, 
by  contrast,  in  spite  of,  not  only  .  ...  but  also,  not  that .... 
but  rather,  on  the  one  hand  ....  and  on  the  other  hand. 

III.   Emphasis 

Value  of  Emphasis.  —  The  third  quality  of  clearness  that 
is  necessary  to  conviction  in  a  speech  is  the  quality  of 
emphasis.  This  quality  differs  from  unity  and  coherence, 
in  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  singleness  of  purpose 


Conviction  259 

in  the  speech  as  a  whole  or  in  any  one  of  its  parts ;  and  it 
has  nothing  to  do  with  connections  between  the  various 
parts  of  a  speech  that  make  it  hang  together ;  but  emphasis 
has  to  do,  rather,  with  keeping  constantly  before  the  minds 
of  the  audience  the  main  points  on  which  the  controversy 
should  be  decided. 

This  quality  is  just  as  important  for  clearness  and  con- 
viction as  is  either  unity  or  coherence;  for  no  matter  how 
clear  and  distinct  the  various  parts  of  a  speech  are  made, 
and  no  matter  how  easily  and  naturally  these  parts  are  con- 
nected with  one  another,  unless  the  more  important  parts 
command  more  attention  than  others,  the  clearness  of  the 
speech  as  a  whole  will  be  lost  in  a  wilderness  of  detail. 

Different  Methods  of  Emphasis.  —  The  purpose  of  empha- 
sis in  a  speech  is  to  keep  constantly  before  the  minds  of  an 
audience  the  main  points  in  controversy.  To  accomplish 
this  purpose,  many  different  methods  of  emphasis  are  used : 
namely,  — 

1 .  Emphasis  by  Position ; 

2.  Emphasis  by  Space ; 

3.  Emphasis  by  Striking  Phraseology ; 

4.  Emphasis  by  Iteration ; 

5.  Emphasis  by  Climax ;     and 

6.  Emphasis  by  Suspense. 

Emphasis  by  Position.  —  The  first  and  last  words  of  a 
speaker  are  always  those  that  command  the  most  attention 
from  an  audience ;  and,  hence,  the  first  law  of  emphasis,  ap- 
plying to  all  parts  of  a  speech  —  to  its  main  divisions,  its  para- 
graphs, and  its  sentences  —  is  that  important  points  should 
be  placed  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end;  whereas, 
less  important  points  should  be  placed  in  the  middle. 
This  method  of  emphasis  is  called  emphasis  by  position. 


260  Making  the  Plea 

Emphasis  by  Space.  —  The  second  method  of  emphasis 
that  may  be  employed  in  a  speech  is  called  emphasis  by  space. 
This  method  of  emphasis  is  one  that  calls  attention  to  the 
importance  of  a  point  by  the  space  given  to  its  consideration. 
The  more  important  a  point  is,  the  more  space,  of  course, 
should  be  given  to  its  consideration. 

In  order  to  extend  the  space  given  to  the  consideration  of 
a  point,  the  speaker  may  state  its  importance,  explain  its 
exact  nature,  distinguish  it  from  other  points,  support  it  with 
proof,  and  destroy  whatever  proof  may  be  advanced  against 
it. 

Emphasis  by  Striking  Phraseology.  —  The  third  method 
of  emphasis  that  may  be  employed  in  a  speech  is  called 
emphasis  by  striking  phraseology.  This  method  consists 
in  making  vivid  the  main  point,  or  points,  of  a  speech,  by 
reducing  them  to  short,  crisp,  figurative  expressions  that  may 
be  easily  remembered  and  frequently  repeated. 

Countless  illustrations  of  this  method  of  emphasis  may  be 
found  in  the  speeches  of  great  orators.  Burke,  for  example, 
used  this  method  in  his  speech  on  Conciliation  when  he  re- 
ferred continually  to  Lord  North's  plan  as  a  scheme  of 
"  ransom  by  auction." 

Rufus  Choate  used  this  method  in  the  trial  of  a  case  involv- 
ing marine  insurance  when  he  said  of  a  vessel :  "  She  went 
down  the  harbor  a  painted  and  perfidious  thing  —  a  coffin, 
but  no  ship" 

Disraeli  used  this  method  when,  as  leader  of  the  minority 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  he  said  :  "  As  I  gazed  over  at  the 
Treasury  Bench  and  viewed  the  row  of  exhausted  champions 
of  this  measure,  I  was  reminded  of  a  marine  landscape  not 
unusual  along  the  coast  of  South  America :  you  behold  a 
range  of  extinct  volcanoes!" 


Conviction  261 

Lincoln  used  this  method  in  his  speech  at  Springfield, 
Illinois,  when  he  quoted  from  the  Scriptures  saying :  "  A 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 

And  William  J.  Bryan  used  this  method  in  his  speech  be- 
fore the  Democratic  Convention  at  Chicago  in  1896,  when  he 
said :  "  You  shall  not  press  down  upon  the  brow  of  labor 
this  crown  of  thorns;  you  shall  not  crucify  mankind  upon 
a  cross  of  gold" 

Emphasis  by  Iteration.  —  The  fourth  method  of  emphasis 
that  may  be  employed  in  a  speech  is  called  emphasis  by 
iteration.  This  method  consists  in  repeating  some  important 
word,  phrase,  sentence,  or  thought,  over  and  over  again,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  impress  it  on  the  memory  of  even  the  dullest 
person. 

Henry  Clay,  for  example,  used  this  method  in  his  speech 
on  his  Compromise  Measure  of  1833,  when  he  said : 

"  I  have  been  accused  of  ambition  in  presenting  this 
measure  —  ambition,  inordinate  ambition.  If  I  had  thought 
of  myself  only,  I  should  never  have  brought  it  forward.  I 
know  well  the  perils  to  which  I  expose  myself;  the  risk  of 
alienating  faithful  and  valued  friends,  with  but  little  prospect 
of  making  new  ones,  if  any  new  ones  could  compensate  for 
the  loss  of  those  who  have  been  long  tried  and  loved ;  and 
the  honest  misconception  both  of  friends  and  foes.  Am- 
bition  f  If  I  had  listened  to  its  soft  and  seducing  whispers ; 
if  I  had  yielded  myself  to  the  dictates  of  a  cold,  calculating, 
and  prudential  policy,  I  would  have  stood  still  and  unmoved. 
I  might  even  have  silently  gazed  on  the  raging  storm,  enjoyed 
its  loudest  thunders,  and  left  those  who  are  charged  with  the 
care  of  the  vessel  of  state  to  conduct  it  as  they  could.  .  .  . 

"  Yes,  I  have  ambition:  but  it  is  the  ambition  of  being  the 
humble  instrument,  in  the  hands  of  Providence,  to  reconcile 


262  Making  the  Plea 

a  divided  people ;  once  more  to  revive  concord  and  harmony 
in  a  distracted  land,  —  the  pleasing  ambition  of  contemplat- 
ing the  glorious  spectacle  of  a  free,  united,  prosperous,  and 
fraternal  people  ! "  * 

This  method  was  also  used  by  William  J.  Bryan  in  his 
famous  Cross  of  Gold  Speech,  when  he  said  : 

"  We  say  to  you  that  you  have  made  the  definition  of  a 
business  man  too  limited  in  its  application.  The  man  who  is 
employed  for  wages  is  as  much  a  business  man  as  his  employer ; 
the  attorney  in  a  country  town  is  as  much  a  business  man 
as  the  corporation  counsel  in  a  great  metropolis ;  the  mer- 
chant at  the  cross-roads  store  is  as  much  a  business  man  as 
the  merchant  of  New  York ;  the  farmer  who  goes  forth  in  the 
morning  and  toils  all  day  —  who  begins  in  the  spring  and 
toils  all  summer  —  and  who  by  the  application  of  brain  and 
muscle  to  the  natural  resources  of  the  country  creates  wealth, 
is  as  much  a  business  man  as  the  man  who  goes  upon  the 
board  of  trade  and  bets  upon  the  price  of  grain ;  the  miners 
who  go  down  a  thousand  feet  into  the  earth,  or  climb  two- 
thousand  feet  upon  the  cliffs,  and  bring  forth  from  their 
hiding  places  the  precious  metals  to  be  poured  into  the 
channels  of  trade  are  as  much  business  men  as  the  few  finan- 
cial magnates  who,  in  a  back  room,  corner  the  money  of  the 
world.  We  come  to  speak  for  this  broader  class  of  business 
men.    z 

Emphasis  by  Climax.  —  The  fifth  method  of  emphasis 
that  may  be  employed  in  a  speech  is  called  emphasis  by 
climax.  This  method  consists  in  arranging  a  series  of  points 
according  to  their  increasing  importance,  and,  thereby,  des- 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  pp.  163-165. 

2  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  p.  268. 


Conviction  263 

ignating  the  final  point  in  the  series  as  the  most  important 
of  all. 

This  method  of  emphasis,  combined  with  that  of  iteration, 
was  used  most  ably  by  Edmund  Burke  in  the  following 
powerful  quotation  taken  from  the  conclusion  of  his  speech 
at  the  impeachment  of  Warren  Hastings.  In  this  speech, 
Burke  said  : 

"Therefore,  it  is  with  confidence  that,  ordered  by  the 
Commons, 

"  I  impeach  Warren  Hastings,  Esquire,  of  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors. 

"  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  the  Commons  of  Great 
Britain,  in  Parliament  assembled,  whose  parliamentary 
trust  he  has  betrayed. 

"  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  the  Commons  of  Great 
Britain  whose  national  character  he  has  dishonored. 

"  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  India,  whose 
laws,  rights,  and  liberties  he  has  subverted;  whose  prop- 
erties he  has  destroyed ;  whose  country  he  has  laid  waste 
and  desolate. 

"  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  and  by  virtue  of  those  eternal 
laws  of  justice  which  he  has  violated. 

"  I  impeach  him  in  the  name  of  human  nature  itself,  which 
he  has  cruelly  outraged,  injured,  and  oppressed,  in  both 
sexes,  in  every  age,  rank,  situation,  and  condition  of  life."  x 

Emphasis  by  Suspense.  —  The  sixth  and  last  method  of 
emphasis  that  may  be  used  in  a  speech  is  called  emphasis  by 
suspense.  This  method  consists  in  withholding  an  important 
point,  through  a  long  succession  of  clauses,  sentences,  or 
even  paragraphs,  in  order  to  stimulate  curiosity  and  thereby 
fix  attention  upon  what  is  being  withheld. 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  p.  93, 


264  Making  the  Plea 

When  this  method  is  used  within  a  single  sentence,  an 
important  word,  or  phrase,  or  clause  that  is  necessary  to  com- 
plete the  meaning  is  reserved  to  the  very  end.  Such  a  sen- 
tence is  called  a  periodic  sentence;  and  is  illustrated  by  the 
following  example  taken  from  the  speech  by  Daniel  O'Con- 
nell  on  the  Irish  Disturbance  Bill: 

"  If  ever  I  doubted  before  of  the  success  of  our  agitation 
for  repeal,  this  bill,  —  this  infamous  bill,  —  the  way  in  which 
it  has  been  received  by  the  House ;  the  manner  in  which  its 
opponents  have  been  treated ;  the  personalities  to  which  they 
have  been  subjected ;  the  yells  with  which  one  of  them  has 
this  night  been  greeted,  —  all  these  things  dissipate  my 
doubts,  and  tell  me  of  its  complete  and  early  triumph." * 

Another  illustration  of  this  type  of  sentence  may  be  found 
in  Henry  Clay's  speech  on  America's  Duty  to  Greece,  when  he 
said: 

"  What  appearance,  sir,  on  the  page  of  history,  would  a 
record  like  this  make:  'In  the  month  of  January,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  1824,  while  all  European  Chris- 
tendom beheld,  with  cold,  unfeeling  apathy,  the  unexampled 
wrongs  and  inexpressible  misery  of  Christian  Greece,  a  prop- 
osition was  made  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  — 
almost  the  sole,  the  last,  the  greatest  repository  of  human 
hope  and  of  human  freedom,  the  representatives  of  a  nation 
capable  of  bringing  into  the  field  a  million  of  bayonets  — 
while  the  freemen  of  that  nation  were  spontaneously  ex- 
pressing its  deep-toned  feeling,  its  fervent  prayer,  for  Grecian 
success ;  while  the  whole  continent  was  rising,  by  one  simul- 
taneous motion,  solemnly  and  anxiously  supplicating  and 
invoking  the  aid  of  heaven  to  spare  Greece,  and  to  invigorate 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  p.  100. 


Conviction  265 

her  arms ;  while  temples  and  senate-houses  were  all  resound- 
ing with  one  burst  of  generous  sympathy ;  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,  —  that  Saviour  alike  of  Christian  Greece 
and  of  us,  —  a  proposition  was  offered  in  the  American 
Congress  to  send  a  messenger  to  Greece,  to  inquire  into  her 
state  and  condition,  with  an  expression  of  our  good  wishes 
and  our  sympathies,  —  and  it  was  rejected  I"1 

And  still  another  good  illustration  of  this  type  of  sentence 
may  be  found  in  the  following  quotation  from  Lord  Ma- 
caulay's  speech  on  the  Reform  Bill: 

"  Now,  therefore,  while  everything,  at  home  and  abroad 
forebodes  ruin  to  those  who  persist  in  a  hopeless  struggle 
against  the  spirit  of  the  age;  now,  while  the  crash  of  the 
proudest  throne  of  the  Continent  is  still  resounding  in  our 
ears;  now,  while  the  roof  of  a  British  palace  affords  an 
ignominious  shelter  to  the  exiled  heir  of  forty  kings;  now, 
while  we  see  on  every  side  ancient  institutions  subverted, 
and  great  societies  dissolved ;  now,  while  the  heart  of  England 
is  still  sound;  now,  while  old  feelings  and  old  associations 
retain  a  power  and  a  charm  which  may  too  soon  pass  away ; 
now,  in  this  your  accepted  time,  now,  in  this  your  day  of 
salvation,  take  counsel,  not  of  prejudice,  not  of  party  spirit, 
not  of  the  ignominious  pride  of  a  fatal  consistency,  but  of 
history,  of  reason,  of  the  ages  which  are  past,  of  the  signs  of 
this  most  portentous  time."  2 

Emphasis  by  a  Combination  of  Methods.  —  In  the  illus- 
trations of  the  different  methods  of  emphasis  given,  pp.  258- 
265,  it  will  be  noticed  that  these  methods  are  not  mutually 
exclusive,  but  that  one  may  be  used  to  supplement  the  others. 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  pp.  161-162. 

2  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments  (Allyn  &  Bacon),  p.  270. 


266  Making  the  Plea 

An  excellent  illustration  of  all  these  methods  combined  may 
be  found  in  Burke's  definition  of  his  policy  in  the  speech  on 
Conciliation.     This  illustration  is  given  below  : 

"  The  proposition  is  peace.  Not  peace  through  the  medium 
of  war;  not  peace  to  be  hunted  through  the  labyrinth  of 
intricate  and  endless  negotiations ;  not  peace  to  arise  out  of 
universal  discord  fomented,  from  principle,  in  all  parts  of 
the  Empire ;  not  peace  to  depend  on  the  juridical  deter- 
mination of  perplexing  questions,  or  the  precise  marking  of 
shadowy  boundaries  of  a  complex  government.  It  is  simple 
peace;  sought  in  its  natural  course,  and  in  its  ordinary 
haunts.  It  is  peace  sought  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  and  laid 
in  principles  purely  pacific.  I  propose,  by  removing  the 
ground  of  the  difference,  and  by  restoring  the  former  unsus- 
pecting confidence  of  the  Colonies  in  the  Mother  Country, 
to  give  permanent  satisfaction  to  your  people ;  and  (far  from 
a  scheme  of  ruling  by  discord)  to  reconcile  them  to  each  other 
in  the  same  act  and  by  the  bond  of  the  very  same  interest 
which  reconciles  them  to  British  government."  l 

Table  of  Means  for  Securing  Conviction.  —  For  the  pur- 
pose of  enabling  the  student  to  see  at  a  glance  all  the  different 
means  for  attaining  conviction,  the  following  table  is  inserted  : 
I.    Conviction 

A.    To  Make  Clear  the  Validity  of  Proof 

1.  By  Means  of  the  Brief 

2.  By  Means  of  Rhetorical  Qualities 
(a)    Unity 

(V)  Unity  in  the  Speech  as  a  Whole 

(II')  Unity  in  the  Main  Divisions 

(III')  Unity  in  the  Paragraphs 

(IV)  Unity  in  the  Sentences 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  5. 


Conviction  267 


(b) 


(e) 


Coherence 

d') 

Seqwwce 

(A') 

More  Familiar  to  Less  Familiar 

(B') 

Time 

(1/)   Large  to  Small 

(20 

Near  to  Far 

(30 

Natural  Progression  from 
one  Point  of  View  to 
Another 

(CO 

Points  from  Definition 

(DO 

Points  from  Chain  of  Reasoning 

(no 

Transitions 

(A') 

For  Main  Divisions 

d0 

Partition 

(2') 

Summary 

(30 

Summary  and  Partition 

(50 

For  Subordinate  Parts 

d0 

Nouns  and  Pronouns  Re- 
ferring Backwards 

(20 

Conjunctions  and  Adverbial 
Phrases 

Emphasis 

dO 

Position 

(II') 

Space 

(III') 

Striking  Phraseology 

(IV) 

Iteration 

(vo 

Climax 

(VI') 

Suspense 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Conviction.  —  To  create  or 
destroy  belief,  a  debater  must  employ  both  conviction  and 
persuasion.  The  process  of  conviction,  therefore,  is  one  with 
which  every  debater  should  be  familiar.     He  should  know: 


268  Making  the  Plea 

First,  that  conviction  is  a  process  used  in  speech-making 
to  make  clear  the  validity  of  proof ;  second,  that  the  clear- 
ness of  proof  should  always  be  at  its  height  in  the  brief; 
and  third,  that  the  clearness  of  the  brief  can  be  carried  over 
into  the  speech  only  through  observing  the  principles  of  unity, 
coherence,  and  emphasis. 


CHAPTER  II 

PERSUASION1 

Importance  of  Persuasion.  —  "  You  can  lead  a  horse  to 
water,  but  you  cannot  make  him  drink."  No  statement 
illustrates  better  than  this  the  necessity  of  adding  persuasion 
to  conviction  in  order  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  debate. 
By  conviction,  we  may  lead  a  person  to  see  the  truth  of  a  prop- 
osition, but  only  by  persuasion  may  we  lead  him  to  embrace 
it  as  a  firm  belief  on  which  to  base  his  conduct.  Persua- 
sion, therefore,  is  an  invaluable  aid  to  conviction ;  and,  as 
such,  is  one  of  the  most  important  processes  in  the  art  of 
debate. 

Definition  of  Persuasion.  —  Persuasion  is  a  process  by 
which  one  is  made  to  believe  a  proposition  by  feeling  and 
appreciating  its  truth.2 

To  be  more  specific :  It  is  a  process  by  which  all  the  proof 
in  a  case  is  provided  with  interest  and  a  motive  for  its  accept- 
ance. 

Relation  of  Persuasion  to  Conviction.  —  Persuasion  pre- 
pares the  way  for  conviction,  and  then  enforces  its  conclu- 
sion. Persuasion,  however,  should  not  be  regarded  as  a 
process  that  is  kept  separate  from  conviction;  for,  in  ah 
instances,  it  should  accompany  conviction  step  by  step 
throughout  a  speech. 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Persuasion,  see  Appendix  A. 

2  See  pages  4-5. 


270  Making  the  Plea 

Places  of  Marked  Persuasion  in  a  Speech.  —  The  places 
in  a  speech  where  the  process  of  persuasion  is  always  most 
marked  are  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end.  At  the  begin- 
ning, persuasion  always  serves  to  provide  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject; and,  at  the  end,  it  always  serves,  through  touching 
various  motives,  to  produce  action ;  that  is,  to  produce  the 
acceptance  of  the  proof  and  any  other  action  that  naturally 
follows  from  this  acceptance. 

Methods  of  Persuasion.  —  Persuasion  is  a  process  by 
which  one  is  made  to  feel  the  truth  of  a  proposition.  To 
produce  this  feeling  of  truth,  it  relies  on  various  methods, 
which  are : 

1.  To  inspire  confidence  in,  and  respect  for,  the  person- 

ality of  the  speaker ; 

2.  To  bring  the  subject  of  controversy  vividly  within  the 

experience  of  the  hearers ;  and 

3.  To  associate  the  proposition  with  motives  among  the 

hearers  that  will  lead  to  its  acceptance. 

Methods   of  Inspiring   Confidence   and  Respect.  —  The 

methods  by  which  a  speaker  may  inspire  confidence  and 
respect  for  his  personality  among  his  hearers  are  many  and 
varied.  It  would  be  impossible  to  enumerate  them  all; 
but  they  may  be  divided  roughly  into  those  that  make  an 
indirect  appeal,  and  those  that  appeal  more  directly. 

The  methods  of  making  an  indirect  persuasive  appeal 
through  one's  personality  are  by  means  of  displaying  the 
following  qualities : 

1.  Uprightness; 

2.  Earnestness; 

3.  Modesty; 

4.  Tact; 


Persuasion  271 

5.  Dignity; 

6.  Humor; 

7.  Intellectuality ; 

8.  Calmness ;  and 

9.  Aggressiveness. 

The  methods  of  making  a  direct  persuasive  appeal  through 
one's  personality  are  by : 

1 .  Vindication  of  One's  Self ; 

2.  Attack  on  Character  of  One's  Opponents ; 

3.  Acknowledgment  of  Favors ;  and 

4.  Tactful  Praise  of  the  Audience. 

I.  Persuasion  through  Personality  by  Indirect 
Appeal 

Persuasion  through  Uprightness.  —  The  value  of  up- 
rightness  as  a  trait  of  personal  character  inspiring  confidence 
and  respect  hardly  needs  to  be  stated;  but  the  proper 
methods  of  impressing  this  quality  upon  an  audience  may 
need  explanation. 

It  goes  without  saying,  of  course,  that  the  speaker  must 
have  a  good  reputation  and  that  he  must  not  be  detected  in 
any  falsehood  or  double-dealing;  but  in  addition  to  being 
actually  upright,  he  must  also  act  the  part;  that  is,  he 
must  appear  to  be  so. 

The  appearance  of  uprightness,  he  never  can  have  as  a 
speaker  if  he  slouches  before  an  audience  or  refuses  to  look 
them  steadily  in  the  eye.  To  gain  the  appearance  of  up- 
rightness, therefore,  in  order  to  inspire  confidence  and  re- 
spect, the  speaker  should  stand  erect  before  his  audience, 
firmly  planted  on  both  feet,  with  shoulders  squared,  and  an 
eye  that  never  leaves  the  eyes  of  his  hearers. 


272  Making  the  Plea 

Persuasion  through  Earnestness.  —  The  second  quality 
in  personality  that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  the 
quality  of  earnestness.  This  quality  is  one  that  the  actor 
may  feign;  but  one  that  the  debater  should  never  feign. 
He  should  actually  feel  it. 

For  a  debater  to  possess  this  quality,  he  cannot  be  indiffer- 
ent to  the  outcome  of  a  debate;  he  must  set  his  whole 
heart  on  establishing  his  side  of  the  case ;  and  for  the  time 
being,  at  least,  no  question  in  the  world  can  be  of  more  im- 
portance to  him  than  the  question  under  discussion. 

Different  people,  of  course,  express  their  earnestness  in 
various  ways,  some  by  becoming  nervous,  others  by  shout- 
ing and  bellowing,  and  still  others  by  stamping,  pounding, 
and  gesticulating.  Unless  the  speaker  feels  impelled  to  do 
some  of  these  things,  he  is  not  tremendously  in  earnest. 
These  impulses  are  all  signs  of  real  earnestness;  but  the 
debater  should  always  hold  them  in  check ;  for  unrestrained 
earnestness  will  becloud  his  reasoning  powers,  which,  after 
all,  are  of  the  greatest  importance.  The  debater,  therefore, 
should  not  stamp,  and  pound,  and  bellow  to  express  his 
earnestness;  but  should  rather  cultivate  a  few  forceful 
gestures  that  he  may  use  without  premeditation,  and  a  quiet, 
earnest  tone  that  betokens  a  wonderful  reserve  power 
which  he  seldom  uses  and  seldom  needs  to  use. 

Persuasion  through  Modesty.  —  The  third  quality  in 
personality  that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  the  quality 
of  modesty.  This  quality  demands  the  absolute  elimination 
of  all  egotism,  vanity,  strut,  and  condescension  in  the  appear- 
ance of  the  speaker ;  for,  whenever  these  qualities  appear  in 
the  place  of  modesty,  they  create  almost  immediately  a 
feeling  toward  the  speaker  of  hostility,  contempt,  or  ridi- 
cule. 


Persuasion  273 

A  truly  modest  person  never  needs  to  be  concerned  about 
this  quality ;  but  the  man  who  suspects  that  he  is  egotistical, 
vain,  strutting,  and  condescending,  should  regard  these 
qualities  as  an  almost  fatal  handicap  to  his  success ;  and  he 
should  seek  in  every  way  to  cultivate  the  quality  of  real  modesty. 

The  cultivation  of  modesty,  however,  always  begets  the 
danger  of  producing  false  modesty ;  and,  in  most  instances, 
false  modesty  is  even  more  unbearable  than  egotism.  The 
quality  of  modesty,  therefore,  ought  to  be  inborn,  or  ought 
to  be  cultivated  so  that  it  becomes  part  of  one's  second  na- 
ture; and  almost  never  should  it  be  feigned,  for  only  the 
most  consummate  actor  can  play  the  part  of  assumed  mod- 
esty without  detection. 

Persuasion  through  Tact.  —  The  fourth  qualitv  in  per- 
sonality that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  tact.  This 
quality  is  one  that  leads  the  speaker  never  to  be  flippant 
with  his  audience,  never  to  outrage  their  feelings  of  propriety, 
never  to  ridicule  what  they  consider  sacred,  never  to  fly 
needlessly  in  the  face  of  their  prejudices,  never  to  taunt  them 
for  their  ignorance,  and  in  general  never  to  overstep  the 
bounds  of  gentlemanly  conduct. 

Persuasion  through  Dignity.  —  The  fifth  quality  in  per- 
sonality that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  dignity. 
This  quality  in  a  speaker  is  one  that  has  nothing  to  do  with 
stiff-necked  prudishness,  funereal  somberness,  affected  man- 
nerism, or  icy  formality ;  but  is  a  quality  rather  that  consists 
merely  in  self-respect  and  respect  for  the  occasion  that  calls 
forth  the  speech. 

This  quality  is  usually  made  manifest  in  the  speaker  by 
his  refusal  to  indulge  in  the  antics  of  a  clown  or  the  ravings 
of  a  madman,  and  by  his  careful  avoidance  of  all  coarseness 
and  vulgarity. 


274  Making  the  Plea 

Persuasion  through  Humor.  —  The  sixth  quality  in  per- 
sonality that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  humor.  This 
quality  in  a  speaker  calls  forth  confidence  and  respect,  be- 
cause it  displays  a  keenness  and  quickness  of  mind  that  seem 
to  qualify  the  speaker  for  any  emergency. 

This  quality  is  too  often  lacking  among  speech-makers 
and  among  debaters  particularly,  to  their  own  great  detri- 
ment ;  and,  hence,  it  should  be  encouraged  in  every  possible 
way.  To  cultivate  humor,  a  speech-maker  or  debater  should 
have  on  hand,  whether  he  uses  them  or  not,  one  or  more 
appropriate  anecdotes  for  every  occasion;  he  should  never 
miss  an  opportunity  for  repartee;  he  should  practice  con- 
tinually the  method  of  refutation  by  reductio  ad  absurdum  so 
as  to  bring  out  ludicrous  consequences ;  and  he  should  train 
himself  Kost  carefully  in  the  use  of  irony  by  speaking  in  op- 
posites. 

When  humor  is  brought  into  a  debate,  however,  three 
cautions  must  be  observed :  First,  every  joke  must  be  appro- 
priate, and  must  not  be  given  merely  for  its  own  sake ;  sec- 
ond,  humor  should  almost  never  take  the  form  of  personal 
jibes  except  when  this  is  justified  as  a  retort;  and  third, 
humor  should  almost  never  be  allowed  to  dominate  an  en- 
tire speech.  i 

Persuasion  through  Intellectuality.  —  The  seventh  qual- 
ity in  personality  that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is 
intellectuality.  This  quality  consists  in  giving  the  impression 
of  wide  learning  and  special  training  within  the  field  of  the 
subject  for  discussion. 

This  quality  may  be  feigned  by  a  good  actor,  but  the  best 
practice  for  a  debater  is  actually  to  possess  it.  In  order  to 
cultivate  this  quality,  a  debater  should  make  himself  so 
familiar  with  every  detail  of  every  case  that  he  will  be  able 


Persuasion  275 

to  speak  without  hesitation  in  the  technical  terms  appro- 
priate to  the  case ;  and  so  that  he  will  be  able  on  a  moment's 
notice  to  cite  any  authorities  that  are  required,  produce  any 
facts  or  figures  that  may  be  necessary,  and  meet  whatever 
points  may  be  advanced  against  him. 

Persuasion  through  Calmness.  —  The  eighth  quality  in 
personality  that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  is  calmness. 
This  quality  consists  in  never  becoming  ruffled  by  attacks 
on  one's  personality,  character,  or  reputation ;  and  in  never 
appearing  to  realize  that  a  damaging  point  has  been  raised 
against  one's  own  case.  This  quality  demands  that  a  de- 
bater shall  never  lose  his  temper,  and  shall  never  become 
unduly  excited,  so  that  he  loses  his  power  of  perfectly  clear 
thinking.  If  a  debater  always  remains  calm  under  the  most 
trying  circumstances,  nothing  can  inspire  greater  confidence 
in  him  and  respect  for  him  among  his  hearers. 

Persuasion  through  Aggressiveness.  —  The  ninth  and 
last  quality  in  personality  that  inspires  confidence  and  re- 
spect is  aggressiveness.  A  debate  is  essentially  a  conflict; 
and  a  debater  must,  therefore,  be  a  fighter.  If  he  contin- 
ually retreats  and  evades  his  opponent,  he  cannot  inspire 
either  confidence  or  respect ;  but  if,  through  aggressiveness, 
from  start  to  finish  in  a  debate,  he  continually  seeks  to  es- 
tablish contact  with  his  opponent,  and  to  destroy  him  root 
and  branch,  he  then  inspires  the  utmost  confidence  and 
respect  that  can  be  expected  from  his  hearers. 

II.  Persuasion  through  Personality  by  Direct 
Appeal 

Persuasion  through  Personality  by  Direct  Appeal.  —  In 
the  preceding  paragraphs,  methods  of  making  an  indirect 


276  Making  the  Plea 

persuasive  appeal  through  one's  personality  have  been  con- 
sidered. Now,  four  other  methods  of  making  a  more  direct 
persuasive  appeal  through  one's  personality  must  be  con- 
sidered.   These  methods  are : 

1.  Vindication  of  One's  Self ; 

2.  Attack  on  Character  of  One's  Opponent ; 

3.  Acknowledgment  of  Favors ;  and 

4.  Tactful  Praise  of  the  Audience. 

Persuasion  through  Vindication  of  One's  Self.  —  The 
first  method  of  persuasion,  through  personality,  by  direct 
appeal,  is  by  means  of  vindicating  one's  self  against  any  per- 
sonal attacks  that  have  been  made  upon  one.  This  method 
is  absolutely  necessary  whenever  damaging  statements  have 
been  made  against  a  speaker,  in  order  that  the  confidence 
and  respect  of  the  audience  for  him  may  be  restored. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is  found 
in  the  following  paragraphs  with  which  Webster  opened  his 
speech  in  the  White  Murder  Case: 

"  I  am  little  accustomed,  Gentlemen,  to  the  part  which 
I  am  now  attempting  to  perform.  Hardly  more  than  once 
or  twice  has  it  happened  to  me  to  be  concerned  on  the  side  of 
the  government  in  any  criminal  prosecution  whatever ;  and 
never,  until  the  present  occasion,  in  any  case  affecting  life. 

"  But  I  very  much  regret  that  it  should  have  been  thought 
necessary  to  suggest  to  you  that  I  am  brought  here  to  '  hurry 
you' against  the  law  and  beyond  the  evidence.'  I  hope  I 
have  too  much  regard  for  justice,  and  too  much  respect  for 
my  own  character,  to  attempt  either ;  and  were  I  to  make 
such  attempt,  I  am  sure  that  in  this  court  nothing  can  be 
carried  against  the  law,  and  that  gentlemen,  intelligent  and 
just  as  you  are,  are  not  by  any  power  to  be  hurried  beyond 


Persuasion  277 

the  evidence.  Though  I  could  well  have  wished  to  shun 
this  occasion,  I  have  not  felt  at  liberty  to  withhold  my  pro- 
fessional assistance,  when  it  is  supposed  that  I  may  be  in 
some  degree  useful  in  investigating  and  discovering  the  truth 
respecting  this  most  extraordinary  murder.  It  has  seemed 
to  be  a  duty  incumbent  on  me,  as  on  every  other  citizen,  to 
do  my  best  and  my  utmost  to  bring  to  light  the  perpetrators 
of  this  crime.  Against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  as  an  indi- 
vidual, I  cannot  have  the  slightest  prejudice.  I  would  not 
do  him  the  smallest  injury  or  injustice.  But  I  do  not  affect 
to  be  indifferent  to  the  discovery  and  the  punishment  of  this 
deep  guilt.  I  cheerfully  share  in  the  opprobrium,  how  great 
soever  it  may  be,  which  is  cast  on  those  who  feel  and  mani- 
fest an  anxious  concern  that  all  who  had  a  part  in  planning, 
or  a  hand  in  executing,  this  deed  of  midnight  assassination, 
may  be  brought  to  answer  for  their  enormous  crime  at  the 
bar  of  public  justice."  * 

Persuasion  through  Attack  on  Character  of  One's  Oppo- 
nent. —  The  second  method  of  persuasion,  through  person- 
ality, by  direct  appeal,  is  by  means  of  attacking  the  character 
of  one's  opponent.  This  method  used  to  be  one  in  great 
favor  with  ancient  rhetoricians,  and  is  still  the  favorite 
weapon  of  modern  demagogues;  but  it  very  obviously  in- 
volves the  fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  hominem,  and  usually 
makes  debating  cheap  and  vulgar.  This  weapon  of  per- 
suasion should  never  be  used  except  in  retort  and  then  only 
as  a  last  resort  when  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  exclude  per- 
sonalities from  the  dispute. 

This  method,  of  course,  is  used  to  inspire  confidence  and 
respect  for  a  speaker  by  contrasting  his  superior  moral 
qualities  with  those  of  his  opponent,  or  by  showing  at  least 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  65-66. 


278  Making  the  Plea 

that  he  is  no  worse  than  his  opponent  in  respect  to  moral 
character. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is 
found  in  the  following  paragraphs  taken  from  the  Introduc- 
tion of  the  speech  by  Seargeant  S.  PrentiSs  in  defense  of 
Judge  Wilkinson : 

"  I  have  made  these  remarks,"  he  said,  "  because  I  fear 
that  a  similar  spirit  still  actuates  that  portion  of  this  prose- 
cution, which  is  conducted,  not  by  the  State,  but  by  pri- 
vate individuals. 

"  I  am  not  aware  that  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  is 
incapable  of  vindicating  her  violated  laws,  or  unwilling  to 
prosecute  and  punish  the  perpetrators  of  crime.  The  dis- 
trict attorney  has  given  ample  proof  that  she  is  provided  with 
officers  fully  capable  for  asserting  her  rights  and  protecting 
her  citizens ;  and  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  remarks, 
which  fell  from  him  inadvertently,  I  accord  to  his  observa- 
tions my  most  unqualified  approbation :  he  has  done  equal 
justice  to  the  State  and  the  defendants;  he  has  acquitted 
himself  ably,  honorably,  and  impartially.  But,  gentlemen, 
though  the  State  is  satisfied,  the  prosecutor  is  not.  Your 
laws  have  spoken  through  their  constituted  agent;  now 
private  vengeance  and  vindictive  malice  will  claim  to  be 
heard.  One  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  your  country,  or  of 
any  country,  has  been  employed  to  conduct  the  private  part 
of  this  prosecution;  employed,  not  by  the  commonwealth, 
but  by  the  real  murderer;  him,  whose  forehead  I  intend, 
before  I  am  done,  to  brand  with  the  mark  of  Cain  —  that 
in  after  life  all  may  know  and  all  may  shun  him.  The 
money  of  the  prosecutor  has  purchased  the  talent  of  the 
advocate ;  and  the  contract  is,  that  blood  shall  be  exchanged 
for   gold.    The   learned    and   distinguished    gentleman   to 


Persuasion  279 

whom  I  allude,  and  who  sits  before  me,  may  well  excite  the 
apprehension  of  the  most  innocent.  If  rumor  speak  truth, 
he  has  character  sufficient,  even  though  without  ability,  and 
ability  sufficient,  even  without  character,  to  crush  the  vic- 
tims of  his  purchased  wrath."  * 

Persuasion  through  Acknowledgment  of  Favors.  —  The 

third  method  of  persuasion,  through  personality,  by  direct 
appeal,  is  by  means  of  acknowledging  favors.  This  method 
of  persuasion  creates  confidence  and  respect  for  the  speaker 
by  displaying  his  honorable  qualities  in  the  recognition  of 
his  indebtedness  to  his  opponents  and  to  his  audience  for 
their,  fairness  and  their  courtesy. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is 
found  in  the  following  paragraph  with  which  James  T.  Brady, 
in  1861,  introduced  his  speech  in  defense  of  the  so-called 
Savannah  Privateers,  who,  when  fighting  for  the  South, 
were  captured  on  the  high  seas  and  charged  with  piracy. 
In  this  paragraph,  Brady  said : 

"  May  it  please  the  Court,  —  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  — 
I  feel  quite  certain  that  all  of  you  are  much  satisfied  to  find 
that  this  important  trial  is  rapidly  drawing  to  a  close ;  and 
I  think  it  would  be  unbecoming  in  me,  as  one  of  the  counsel 
for  the  accused,  to  proceed  a  step  farther  in  my  address  to 
you  without  acknowledging  to  the  court  the  gratitude  which 
we  feel  for  their  kindness  in  hearing  so  largely  discussed  the 
grave  legal  questions  involved  in  this  controversy;  to  the 
jury,  for  their  unvarying  patience  throughout  the  investi- 
gation; and  to  our  learned  opponents,  for  the  frank  and 
open  manner  in  which  the  prosecution  has  been  conducted. 
Our  fellow-citizens  at  the  South  —  certainly  that  portion 
of  them  who  cherish  affection  for  this  part  of  the  Union  — 

1  Snyder,  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  91. 


280  Making  the  Plea 

will  find  in  the  course  of  this  trial  most  satisfactory  evidence 
that  respect  for  law,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  discussion, 
liberty  of  opinion,  and  the  rights  of  all  our  countrymen,  here 
exist  to  the  fullest  extent.  All  of  us  have  heretofore  been 
connected  with  interesting  and  exciting  trials.  I  am  war- 
ranted in  saying  that,  considering  the  period  at  which  this 
trial  has  occurred,  and  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  at- 
tending it,  the  citizens  of  New  York  have  reason  to  be  proud 
that  such  a  trial  could  proceed  without  one  word  of  acerbity, 
without  one  expression  of  angry  feeling,  or  one  improper 
exhibition  of  popular  sentiments."  * 

Persuasion  through  Tactful  Praise  of  the  Audience.  —  The 

fourth  and  last  method  of  persuasion,  through  personality, 
by  direct  appeal,  is  by  means  of  tactful  praise  of  the  audience. 
This  method  is  one  that  inspires  confidence  and  respect  for 
the  speaker  by  displaying  his  keenness  in  seeing  the  unusual 
virtues  of  his  audience.  This  method  sometimes  involves 
genuine  praise,  at  other  times  shrewd  flattery,  and  at  still 
other  times  flattery  that  is  quite  apparent. 

The  debater  should,  of  course,  employ  this  method ;  but 
always  with  extreme  caution.  Either  his  praise  should  be 
absolutely  genuine;  or  his  flattery  should  be  delicate,  in- 
volving suggestion  rather  than  outright  statements;  and 
in  either  case  restraint  should  be  sought,  for  otherwise  the 
impression  on  the  audience  will  be,  as  it  was  expressed  by 
the  Queen  in  Shakespeare's  Hamlet:  "  The  lady  doth  pro- 
test too  much,  methinks." 2  This  method  of  persuasion  con- 
sists in  making  love  to  the  audience ;  and  should  not,  there- 
fore, be  used  with  too  much  protestation,  lest  its  insincerity 
be  made  too  apparent. 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  346. 

2  Hamlet,  Act  III,  Sc.  ii. 


Persuasion  281 

Clever  ways  of  using  this  method  of  persuasion  are  to 
suggest  continually  that  the  audience  is  too  shrewd  to  be  de- 
ceived by  any  trickery;  that  the  audience  is  too  noble  to 
have  any  low  or  selfish  motives;  that  the  audience  is  too 
broad-minded  to  have  any  narrow  prejudices ;  and  that  the 
audience  is  too  well  informed  to  be  ignorant  of  any  stray 
fact  of  general  information. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is  found 
in  the  following  paragraphs  taken  from  the  same  speech 
that  has  been  used  previously  as  a  source  of  quotations : 
namely,  the  speech  of  Seargeant  S.  Prentiss  in  defense  of 
Judge  Wilkinson.  In  the  Introduction  to  this  speech,  Pren- 
tiss said : 

"  The  defendants  are  particularly  fortunate  in  being  tried 
before  such  a  tribunal.  The  bearing  and  character  of  his 
Honor  who  presides  with  so  much  dignity,  give  ample  assur- 
ance that  the  law  will  be  correctly  and  impartially  laid  down ; 
and  I  trust  I  may  be  permitted  to  remark,  that  I  have  never 
seen  a  jury  in  whose  hands  I  would  sooner  intrust  the  cause 
of  my  clients,  while,  at  the  same  time,  I  am  satisfied  you 
will  do  full  justice  to  the  commonwealth. 

"  I  came  before  you  an  utter  stranger,  and  yet  I  feel  not 
as  a  stranger  towards  you ;  I  have  watched  during  the  course 
of  the  examination  the  various  emotions  which  the  evidence 
was  so  well  calculated  to  arouse  in  your  bosoms,  both  as 
men  and  as  Kentuckians;  and  when  I  beheld  the  flush  of 
honorable  shame  upon  your  cheeks,  the  sparkle  of  indigna- 
tion in  your  eyes,  or  the  curl  of  scorn  upon  your  lips,  as  the 
foul  conspiracy  was  developed,  I  felt  that  years  could  not 
make  us  better  acquainted.  I  saw  upon  your  faces  the 
mystic  sign  which  constitutes  the  bond  of  union  among  hon- 
est and  honorable  men;    and  I  knew  that  I  was  about  to 


282  Making  the  Plea 

address  those  whose  feelings  would  respond  to  my  own.  I 
rejoiced  that  my  clients  were,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term, 
to  be  tried  by  a  jury  of  their  peers. "  * 

III.  Persuasion   through   Vividness   by   Direct   Dis- 
course 

Persuasion  through  Bringing  Subject  Vividly  within 
Experience  of  Hearers.  —  People  in  an  audience  are  made 
to  feel  the  truth  of  a  proposition,  not  only  through  confidence 
and  respect  for  the  personality  of  the  speaker,  but  also 
through  the  relation  of  the  subject  under  discussion  to  their 
own  experience.  One  of  the  objects  of  a  speaker  should  be, 
therefore,  to  bring  his  view  of  the  subject  in  controversy  as 
vividly  as  possible  within  the  experience  of  his  hearers. 

This  object  he  may  attain  by  means  of  two  general 
methods:  First,  by  means  of  direct  discourse;  and  second, 
by  means  of  concreteness. 

Persuasion  through  Direct  Discourse.  — The  first  method 
of  bringing  a  subject  vividly  within  the  experience  of  a 
hearer  is  by  means  of  direct  discourse.  This  method  of  per- 
suasion is  one  that  involves  a  continual  use  of : 

1.  The  Pronouns  We  and  You; 

2.  The  Imperative  Mood ; 

3.  Interrogation;  and 

4.  Direct  Quotation. 

Persuasion  through  the  Use   of    We  and    You.  —  Any 

subject  may  be  brought  vividly  within  the  experience  of  an 
audience,  if  a  debater  will  continually  fasten  it  to  his  audi- 
ence by  working  into  most  of  his  sentences  the  pronouns, 
we  and  you.    This  process  may,  at  first,  seem  difficult ;  but 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  88. 


Persuasion  283 

in  reality,  it  is  very  simple ;  for  very  few  subjects  of  discus- 
sion are  entirely  removed  from  the  experience  of  an  audience ; 
and  the  debater  may  always  preface  his  remarks  with  such 
statements  as :  Of  course,  we  all  know ;  if  you  had  been  pres- 
ent you  would  have  seen;  when  we  look  into  the  matter,  we 
discover;  etc.,  etc. 

Burke  used  this  method  in  his  speech  on  Conciliation, 
when  he  said : 

"  We  know  that  parties  must  ever  exist  in  a  free  country. 
We  know,  too,  that  the  emulations  of  such  parties  —  their 
contradictions,  their  reciprocal  necessities,  their  hopes,  and 
their  fears  —  must  send  them  all  in  their  turns  to  him  that 
holds  the  balance  of  the  State/'  * 

Patrick  Henry  used  this  method  in  his  speech  on  the  Con- 
fiscation of  British  Debts,  when  he  said : 

"  I  need  only  refer  to  your  recollection  for  our  pressing 
situation  during  the  late  contest.  .  .  .  The  fact  was,  that 
we  were  attacked  by  one  of  the  most  formidable  nations, 
under  heaven.  .  .  .  Our  united  property  enabled  us  to 
look  in  the  face  that  mighty  people.  Dared  we  to  have  gone 
in  opposition  to  them  bound  hand  and  foot?  Would  we 
have  dared  to  resist  them  fettered?  "  2 

Lincoln  used  this  method  in  his  Gettysburg  Address,  when 
he  said: 

"  Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war,  testing  whether 
that  nation,  or  any  nation  so  conceived  and  so  dedicated, 
can  long  endure.  We  have  come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of 
that  field  as  a  final  resting-place  for  those  who  here  gave  their 
lives  that  that  nation  might  live.     It  is  altogether  fitting 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  70. 

2  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  13. 


284  Making  the  Plea 

and  proper  that  we  should  do  this.  But  in  a  larger  sense  we 
cannot  dedicate,  we  cannot  consecrate,  we  cannot  hallow 
this  ground.' ' x 

Theodore  Parker  used  this  method  in  his  Eulogy  of  Web- 
ster,  when  he  said : 

"  You  remember  the  last  time  he  spoke  in  Boston  —  the 
procession  last  summer.  What  a  sad  and  care-worn  coun- 
tenance was  that  of  the  old  man,  welcomed  with  their  mock- 
ery of  applause !  You  remember  when  the  orator,  wise- 
headed  and  friendly  hearted,  came  to  thank  him  for  his 
services,  he  said  not  a  word  of  serving  the  Union,  of  the  com- 
promise measures,  not  a  word ;  but  for  his  own  great  serv- 
ices he  thanked  him."  2 

And  James  T.  Brady  used  this  method  in  his  Defense  of 
the  Savannah  Privateers,  when  he  said : 

"  You  know  what  you  thought  a  *  thief  \  to  be  when  a  boy, 
and  how  you  despised  him ;  and  you  are  to  look  at  each  pris- 
oner mentioned  in  this  indictment,  and  say,  on  your  con- 
sciences as  men,  in  view  of  the  facts  and  of  the  law,  as  ex- 
pounded by  the  learned  court,  do  you  consider  that  the  word 
'  thief '  can  be  applied  to  any  one  of  the  men  whom  I  have 
to  assist  in  defending?  " 3 

This  method  of  persuasion  is  one  of  the  most  common 
employed  in  all  oratory ;  but  to  show  how  pointedly  it  may 
be  used,  the  two  following  quotations  are  given;  the  first 
from  John  Philpott  Curran  in  his  Defense  of  Rowan  and 
Free  Speech;  and  the  second  from  John  Henry  North  in  his 
Defense  of  Forbes  and  Others. 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  p.  212. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  179. 

3  Snyder,  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  347. 


Persuasion  285 

In  the  midst  of  Curran's  address,  he  said: 

"  Let  me  tell  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  if  you  agree  with 
his  prosecutors  in  thinking  that  there  ought  to  be  a  sacrifice 
of  such  a  man,  on  such  an  occasion ;  and  upon  the  credit  of 
such  evidence,  you  are  to  convict  him  —  never  did  you, 
never  can  you  give  a  sentence  consigning  any  man  to  public 
punishment  with  less  danger  to  his  person  or  to  his  fame."  l 

And  in  the  midst  of  North's  address,  he  said : 

"  Gentlemen,  one  falsehood  George  Atkinson  has  un- 
questionably told  you.  I  am  not  a  living  man  this  moment, 
if  every  word  he  swore  as  to  his  going  to  the  park  was  not  a 
willful  fabrication.  .  .  .  Do  you  believe  him,  gentlemen? 
Do  you,  sir?  Or  you,  or  you ?  No;  no  man  can  believe 
that  he  went  that   morning  to  the  park."  2 

Persuasion  through  the  Use  of  the  Imperative  Mood.  — 
The  second  method  of  persuasion  through  direct  discourse 
is  by  the  use  of  the  imperative  mood.  This  method  brings  a 
subject  vividly  within  the  experience  of  an  audience  by  com- 
manding the  audience  to  give  it  their  consideration. 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is  found  in  the 
following  quotation  from  Henry  Clay's  speech  on  America's 
Duty  to  Greece: 

"  What  appearance,  sir,  on  the  page  of  history,  would  a 
record  like  this  make :  '  In  the  month  of  January,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  1824,  ...  a  proposition  was 
offered  in  the  American  Congress  to  send  a  messenger  to 
Greece  to  inquire  into  her  state  and  condition,  with  an  ex- 
pression of  our  good  wishes  and  our  sympathies,  —  and  it 
was  rejected ! ' 

1  Bryan,  World's  Famous  Orations,  VI,  p.  125. 

2  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  655. 


286  Making  the  Plea 

"  Go  home,  if  you  dare,  —  go  home,  if  you  can,  —  to  your 
constituents,  and  tell  them  that  you  voted  it  down !  Meet, 
if  you  dare,  the  appalling  countenances  of  those  who  sent 
you  here,  and  tell  them  that  you  shrank  from  the  declaration 
of  your  own  sentiments ;  that,  you  cannot  tell  how,  but  that 
some  unknown  dread,  some  indescribable  apprehension, 
some  indefinable  danger,  affrighted  you ;  and  that  you  sup- 
pressed all  the  noble  feelings  prompted  by  religion,  by  liber- 
ality, by  national  independence,  and  by  humanity  !  "  * 

A  further  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  method  is  found  in 
the  following  quotation  from  Charles  Sumner's  speech  on 
The  Crime  against   Kansas: 

"  You  are  now  called  to  redress  a  great  transgression. 
Seldom  in  the  history  of  nations  has  such  a  question  been 
presented,  involving  the  peace  of  the  whole  country,  with 
our  good  name  in  history  for  evermore. 

"  Take  down  your  map,  sir,  and  you  will  find  that  the 
territory  of  Kansas,  more  than  any  other  region,  occupies 
the  middle  spot  of  North  America,  equally  distant  from  the 
Atlantic  on  the  east,  and  the  Pacific  on  the  west." 2 

Lincoln  used  this  method  in  his  speech  at  Alton,  delivered 
during  the  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  when  he  said: 

"  But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty,  and  agitation  we 
have  in  regard  to  this  institution  of  slavery  springs  from 
office-seeking  —  from  the  mere  ambition  of  politicians  ?  Is 
that  the  truth  ?  How  many  times  have  we  had  danger  from 
this  question?  Go  back  to  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. Go  back  to  the  Nullification  Question,  at  the  bot- 
tom of  which  lay  this  same  slavery  question.    Go  back  to  the 

1  Select  Oration  (Macmillan),  p.  161. 

2  Ibid.]  p.  190. 


Persuasion  287 

time  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the  troubles 
that  led  to  the  Compromise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that 
every  time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Nullification 
question,  they  sprung  from  an  endeavor  to  spread  this 
institution."  x 

And  Lord  Macaulay  used  this  method  in  his  speech  on 
the  Reform  Bill,  when  he  said : 

"  Now,  in  this  your  accepted  time,  now,  in  this  your  day 
of  salvation,  take  counsel,  not  of  prejudice,  not  of  party  spirit, 
not  of  the  ignominious  pride  of  a  fatal  consistency,  but  of 
history,  of  reason,  of  the  ages  which  are  past,  of  the  signs  of 
this  most  portentous  time.  Pronounce  in  a  manner  worthy 
of  the  expectations  with  which  this  great  debate  has  been 
anticipated,  and  of  the  long  remembrance  which  it  will  leave 
behind.  Renew  the  youth  of  the  state.  Save  property,  di- 
vided against  itself.  Save  the  multitude,  endangered  by 
its  own  unpopular  power.  Save  the  greatest,  and  fairest, 
and  most  highly  civilized  community  that  ever  existed,  from 
calamities  which  may  in  a  few  days  sweep  away  all  the  rich 
heritage  of  so  many  ages  of  wisdom  and  glory."  2 

Persuasion  through  the  Use  of  Interrogation.  —  The 
third  method  of  persuasion  through  direct  discourse  is  by 
the  use  of  interrogation.  This  method  of  persuasion  brings 
a  subject  vividly  within  the  experience  of  an  audience  by 
challenging  the  audience  to  give  it  their  consideration,  and 
either  to  find  a  solution  for  the  problem,  or  to  agree  with  a 
solution  already  offered. 

Any  form  of  interrogation  has  great  persuasive  value,  if  it 
is  framed  to  anticipate  the  answer;    but  the  form  that  is, 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  274. 

2  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  270. 


288  Making  the  Plea 

perhaps,  most  valuable  is  the  rhetorical  question.  This  type 
of  question  is  one  phrased  in  such  a  way  as  to  suggest  the 
answer.  If  an  affirmative  answer  is  wanted,  for  example, 
the  question  takes  the  following  form :  Is-  this  not  so  ?  — 
and  the  answer  is  Yes.  If,  however,  a  negative  answer  is 
wanted,  the  question  takes  the  following  form :  This  is 
not  so,  is  it?  —  and  the  answer  is  No.  A  rhetorical  question, 
therefore,  is  in  effect  a  very  powerful  declaration  put  in 
the  form  of  an  interrogation. 

The  rhetorical  question  is  a  very  clever  persuasive  device ; 
for  it  may  be  made  to  take  the  place  of  proof  in  many  in- 
stances. The  debater,  therefore,  should  be  careful  never  to 
overwork  it,  and  never  to  rely  on  it  as  if  it  were  proof.  The 
best  use  that  can  be  made  of  the  rhetorical  question  is  that 
it  should  be  made  to  supplement  proof,  to  enforce  proof,  but 
not  to  take  the  place  of  proof.1 

This  use  of  the  rhetorical  question,  and  interrogation  gen- 
erally, to  supplement  and  to  enforce  proof,  is  illustrated  in 
the  following  quotation  from  Lincoln's  speech  at  Alton,  con- 
cerning whether  or  not  the  agitation  over  slavery  arose 
wholly  from  politicians  seeking  office.  In  this  speech,  Lin- 
coln said : 

"  But  does  not  this  question  make  a  disturbance  outside  of 
political  circles?  Does  it  not  enter  into  the  churches  and 
rend  them  asunder?  What  divided  the  great  Methodist 
Church  into  two  parts,  North  and  South?  What  has  raised 
this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly  that  meets?  What  disturbed  the  Unitarian 
Church  in  this  very  city  two  years  ago?  What  has  jarred 
and  shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Society  recently,  not 
yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end?     Is  it  not 

1  See  page  108. 


Persuasion  289 

this  same  mighty,  deep-seated  power  that  sometimes  operates 
on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and  stirring  them  up  in  every 
avenue  of  society  —  in  politics,  in  religion,  in  literature,  in 
morals,  in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life  ?  Is  this  the  work 
of  politicians?  Is  that  irresistible  power,  which  for  fifty 
years  has  shaken  the  government  and  agitated  the  people,  to 
be  settled  and  subdued  by  pretending  that  it  is  an  exceed- 
ingly simple  thing,  and  we  ought  not  to  talk  about  it?  If 
you  will  get  everybody  else  to  stop  talking  about  it,  I  assure 
you  I  will  quit  before  you  have  half  done  so.  But  where  is 
the  philosophy  or  statesmanship  which  assumes  that  you 
can  quiet  that  disturbing  element  in  our  society  which  has 
disturbed  us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which  has  been 
the  only  serious  danger  that  has  threatened  our  institutions 
—  I  say,  where  is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based 
on  the  assumption  that  we  are  to  quit  talking  about  it  and 
that  the  public  mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease  being  agitated  by 
it?  Yet  this  is  the  policy  here  in  the  North  that  Douglas 
is  advocating  —  that  we  are  to  care  nothing  about  it.  I 
ask  you  if  it  is  not  false  philosophy.  Is  it  not  a  false  states- 
manship that  undertakes  to  build  up  a  system  of  policy  upon 
the  basis  of  caring  nothing  about  the  very  thing  that  every- 
body does  care  the  most  about  f  —  a  thing  which  all  experience 
has  shown  we  care  a  very  great  deal  about?  " 1 

Persuasion  through  the  Use  of  Direct  Quotation.  —  The 

fourth  method  of  persuasion  through  direct  discourse  is  by 
the  use  of  direct  quotation.  This  method  consists  in  quot- 
ing the  actual  words  and  expressions  that  were  used  by  a 
witness  in  speaking,  or  the  actual  words  and  expressions 
that,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  witness  would  have 
been  likely  to  use ;  and  preserving  especially  the  use  of  the 


1  Penney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  275. 


290  Making  the  Plea 

first  and  the  second  persons  wherever  these  persons  would 
have  been  used  in  the  original. 

The  difference  between  a  direct  and  an  indirect  quotation 
is  illustrated  in  the  following  sentences.  This  sentence,  for 
example,  involves  a  direct  quotation :  John  said,  "  I  am 
going  to  take  you  to  my  house  " ;  but  this  next  sentence  in- 
volves an  indirect  quotation :  John  said  that  he  was  going 
to  take  him  to  his  house. 

The  persuasive  value  of  direct  quotation  can  hardly  be 
overestimated;  for  such  a  quotation  always  has  the  effect 
of  bringing  the  original  speaker  as  a  living  witness  actually 
before  the  audience.  When  used  cleverly,  this  method  may 
be  employed  with  dramatic  effect  to  make  those  who  are 
silent  seem  to  speak,  to  make  those  who  are  absent  seem  to 
be  present,  and  to  make  those  who  are  dead  seem  to  live,  and 
move,  and  speak  again  to  one's  own  particular  audience. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  the  powerful  persuasive  and 
dramatic  effect  of  direct  quotation  may  be  taken  from  the 
speech  of  Senator  Hoar  delivered  in  the  Senate  after  the 
Spanish-American  War  in  his  famous  debate  with  Beveridge 
on  the  question  of  retaining  the  Philippines.  In  this  speech, 
Hoar  said : 

"  Mr.  President,  it  was  once  my  good  fortune  to  witness 
an  impressive  spectacle  in  this  chamber,  when  the  Senators 
answered  to  their  names  in  rendering  solemn  judgment  in  a 
great  State  trial.  By  a  special  provision  each  Senator  was 
permitted,  when  he  cast  his  vote,  to  state  his  reason  in  a 
single  sentence.  I  have  sometimes  fancied  that  the  question 
before  us  now  might  be  decided,  not  alone  by  the  votes  of 
us  who  sit  here  to-day,  but  of  the  great  men  who  have  been 
our  predecessors  in  this  chamber  and  in  the  Continental 
Congress  from  the  beginning  of  the  Republic. 


Persuasion  291 

"  Would  that  that  roll  might  be  called  :  The  solemn  assem- 
bly sits  silent  while  the  chair  puts  the  question  whose  answer 
is  so  fraught  with  the  hopes  of  liberty  and  the  destiny  of  the 
Republic. 

"  The  roll  is  called.  George  Washington :  '  No.  Why 
should  we  quit  our  own,  to  stand  on  foreign  ground  ?  ' 

"  Alexander  Hamilton :  '  No.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  is  the  fundamental  constitution  of  every 
state/ 

"  Thomas  Jefferson :  '  No.  Governments  are  instituted 
among  men  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed.  Every  people  ought  to  have  that  separate 
and  equal  station  among  the  nations  of  the  world  to  which 
the  laws  of  nature  and  nature's  God  entitle  them.' 

"  John  Adams :  '  No.  I  stood  by  the  side  of  Jefferson 
when  he  brought  in  the  Declaration ;  I  was  its  champion  on 
the  floor  of  Congress.  After  long  estrangement,  I  came  back 
to  his  side  again/ 

"  James  Madison :  ■  No.  The  object  of  the  federal  Con- 
stitution is  to  secure  the  union  of  the  thirteen  primitive 
states,  which  we  know  to  be  practicable,  and  to  add  to  them 
such  other  states  as  may  arise  in  their  own  bosoms  or  in  their 
neighborhood,  which  we  cannot  doubt  will  be  practicable/ 

"  Thomas  Corwin :  '  No.  I  said  in  the  days  of  the  Mex- 
ican War :  If  I  were  a  Mexican,  as  I  am  an  American,  I 
would  welcome  you  with  bloody  hands  to  hospitable  graves. 
And  Ohio  to-day  honors  and  loves  me  for  that  utterance  be- 
yond all  her  other  sons/ 

"  Daniel  Webster :  '  No.  Under  our  Constitution  there 
can  be  no  dependencies.  Wherever  there  is  in  the  Christian 
and  civilized  world  a  nationality  of  character,  then  a  na- 
tional government  is  the  necessary  and  proper  result.  There 
is  not  a  civilized  and  intelligent  man  on  earth  that  enjoys 


292  Making  the  Plea 

satisfaction  with  his  condition  if  he  does  not  live  under  the 
government  of  his  own  nation,  his  own  country.  A  nation 
cannot  be  happy  but  under  a  government  of  its  own  choice. 
When  I  depart  from  these  sentiments  I  depart  from  my- 
self.' 

"  William  H.  Seward :  '  No.  The  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution never  contemplated  colonies  or  provinces  at  all : 
they  contemplated  states  only ;  nothing  less  than  states  — 
perfect  states,  equal  states,  sovereign  states.  There  is  rea- 
son, there  is  sound  political  wisdom,  in  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution  —  excluding  colonies,  which  are  always  sub- 
ject to  oppression,  and  excluding  provinces  which  always 
tend  to  corrupt  and  enfeeble  and  ultimately  to  break  down 
the  parent  state.' 

"  John  Marshall :  '  No.  The  power  to  declare  war  was 
not  conferred  upon  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  aggression 
or  aggrandizement.  A  war  declared  by  Congress  can  never 
be  presumed  to  be  waged  for  the  purpose  of  conquest  or  the 
acquisition  of  territory,  nor  does  the  law  declaring  the  war 
imply  an  authority  to  the  President  to  enlarge  the  limits  of 
the  United  States  by  subjugating  the  enemy's  country.' 

"  John  Quincy  Adams :  '  No.  The  territories  I  helped 
bring  into  the  nation  were  to  be  dwelt  in  by  free  men  and 
made  into  free  states.' 

"  Aaron  Burr :  '  Yes.  You  are  repeating  my  buccaneer- 
ing expedition  down  the  Mississippi.  I  am  to  be  vindicated 
at  last ! ' 

"  Abraham  Lincoln :  '  No.  I  said  in  Independence  Hall  at 
Philadelphia,  just  before  I  entered  upon  my  great  office,  that 
I  rested  upon  the  truth  Thomas  Jefferson  has  just  uttered, 
and  that  I  was  ready  to  be  assassinated,  if  need  be,  in  order 
to  maintain  it.  And  I  was  assassinated  in  order  to  main- 
tain it.' 


Persuasion  293 

"  Charles  Sumner :  '  No.  I  proclaimed  it  when  I  brought 
in  Alaska.  I  sealed  my  devotion  with  my  blood  also.  It 
was  my  support  and  solace  through  those  many  long  and 
weary  hours  when  the  red-hot  iron  pressed  upon  my  spine, 
the  very  source  and  origin  of  agony,  and  I  did  not  flinch. 
He  knows  our  country  little,  little  also  of  that  great  liberty 
of  ours,  who  supposes  that  we  could  receive  such  a  transfer. 
On  each  side  there  is  impossibility.  Territory  may  be  con- 
veyed, but  not  people/ 

"  William  McKinley :  '  There  has  been  a  cloud  before 
my  vision  for  a  moment,  but  I  see  clearly  now ;  I  go  back 
to  what  I  said  two  years  ago  :  Forcible  annexation  is  crimi- 
nal aggression;  governments  derive  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  not  some  of  them,  but  all  of 
them.  I  will  stand  with  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic.  I 
will  stand  with  the  founders  of  the  Republican  party. 
No.' "  1 

IV.    Persuasion   through  Vividness   by  Concreteness 

Persuasion  through  Concreteness.  —  The  first  general 
method  by  which  a  subject  is  brought  vividly  within  the 
experience  of  an  audience  is  by  means  of  direct  discourse, 
and  the  second  general  method  is  by  means  of  concreteness. 

Concreteness  is  a  quality  that  characterizes  a  speaker's 
style  when  he  avoids  the  use  of  vague  abstract  statements 
and  glittering  generalities,  and  uses  in  their  place  definite 
statements  concerning  specific  instances,  actual  events, 
and  real  objects. 

No  other  quality  in  a  speaker's  style  is  more  valuable  for 
purposes  of  persuasion  than  is  the  quality  of  concreteness; 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  361- 
364. 


294  Making  the  Plea 

for  men's  feelings  usually  are  not  touched  by  the  use  of  ab- 
stract principles,  or  by  the  use  of  glittering  generalities,  or 
by  the  use  of  figures  and  statistics  worked  out  in  long  tables 
to  the  last  decimal;  but  they  are  touched  by  specific  in- 
stances, actual  events,  and  real  objects,  such  as :  one  poor 
dog  mangled  and  bleeding  from  being  run  over  by  a  street 
car ;  one  homeless  child  abandoned  by  its  parents  and  left 
half-naked  to  starve  in  the  gutter ;  or  one  poor  veteran  with 
an  empty  sleeve  compelled  by  an  ungrateful  government  to 
get  a  living  by  becoming  a  beggar. 

Rhetoricians,  knowing  well  the  value  of  concreteness  as 
opposed  to  abstract  principles  and  general  statements,  rec- 
ommend, therefore,  the  following  means  for  making  the 
most  of  this  quality : 

1.  The  Use  of  Exhibits; 

2.  Vivid  Word-Pictures ; 

3.  A  Typical  Instance ; 

4.  Contrasted  Types  ;  and 

5.  Striking  Analogies. 

Persuasion  through  Exhibits.  —  The  first  method  of 
persuasion  through  concreteness  is  by  the  use  of  exhibits. 
This  method  is  one  in  which  objects  connected  with  a  case 
are  made  to  speak  for  themselves  without  the  aid  of  an  advo- 
cate. A  blood-stained  garment,  an  empty  cartridge,  a 
widowed  mother,  for  example,  often  speak  more  eloquently 
than  any  words  that  could  be  said  concerning  them ;  and 
such  exhibits,  therefore,  are  common  sights  in  every  court, 
employed  by  lawyers  to  aid  them  in  their  task  of  winning 
juries  through  persuasion.1 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  persuasion  through  exhibits 

1  See  page  53. 


Persuasion  295 

is  found  in  the  speech  of  William  H.  Seward  defending  Wil- 
liam Freeman  against  a  charge  of  murder.  In  this  speech, 
Seward  maintained  that  Freeman  was  insane,  and  in  the 
following  words  he  offered  Freeman,  himself,  as  an  exhibit : 

"Is  there  reason  to  indulge  a  suspicion  of  fraud  here? 
Look  at  this  stupid,  senseless  fool,  almost  as  inanimate  as  the 
clay  moulded  in  the  brick-yard,  and  say,  if  you  dare,  that 
you  are  afraid  of  being  deceived  by  him."  ! 

Persuasion  through  Vivid  Word-Pictures.  —  The  second 
method  of  persuasion  through  concreteness  is  by  means  of 
vivid  word-pictures.  This  method  is  one  employed  by  advo- 
cates when  the  use  of  exhibits  is  impossible,  but  when  the 
advocates  wish,  nevertheless,  to  let  the  facts  speak  for  them- 
selves. This  method  of  persuasion  has  always  been  a  favor- 
ite with  orators,  and  characterizes  particularly  the  style  of 
such  masters  as  Robert  Ingersoll  and  Henry  W.  Grady. 

The  common  means  by  which  a  word-picture  is  made  vivid 
are:  (1)  to  dwell  upon  details;  (2)  to  introduce  movement; 
(3)  to  use  short  sentences ;  and  (4)  to  fall  into  the  historical 
present. 

An  illustration  of  this  method  of  persuasion  through  a 
vivid  word-picture  is  found  in  the  Introduction  to  Webster's 
speech  in  the  White  Murder  Case.  In  this  speech  Webster 
said  : 

"The  deed  was  executed  with  a  degree  of  self-possession 
and  steadiness  equal  to  the  wickedness  with  which  it  was 
planned.  The  circumstances  now  clearly  in  evidence  spread 
out  the  whole  scene  before  us.  Deep  sleep  had  fallen  on  the 
destined  victim,  and  on  all  beneath  his  roof.  A  healthful 
old  man,  to  whom  sleep  was  sweet,  the  first  sound  slumbers 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  159. 


296  Making  the  Plea 

of  the  night  held  him  in  their  soft  but  strong  embrace.  The 
assassin  enters,  through  the  window  already  prepared,  into 
an  unoccupied  apartment.  With  noiseless  foot  he  paces  the 
lonely  hall,  half  lighted  by  the  moon ;  he  winds  up  the  ascent 
of  the  stairs,  and  reaches  the  door  of  the  chamber.  Of  this, 
he  moves  the  lock,  by  soft  and  continued  pressure,  till  it 
turns  on  its  hinges  without  noise ;  and  he  enters,  and  beholds 
his  victim  before  him.  The  room  is  uncommonly  open  to 
the  admission  of  light.  The  face  of  the  innocent  sleeper  is 
turned  from  the  murderer,  and  the  beams  of  the  moon,  rest- 
ing on  the  gray  locks  of  his  aged  temple,  show  him  where  to 
strike.  The  fatal  blow  is  given  !  and  the  victim  passes,  with- 
out a  struggle  or  a  motion,  from  the  repose  of  sleep  to  the 
repose  of  death !  It  is  the  assassin's  purpose  to  make  sure 
work ;  and  he  plies  the  dagger,  though  it  is  obvious  that  life 
has  been  destroyed  by  the  blow  of  the  bludgeon.  He  even 
raises  the  aged  arm,  that  he  may  not  fail  in  his  aim  at  the 
heart,  and  replaces  it  again  over  the  wounds  of  the  poniard ! 
To  finish  the  picture,  he  explores  the  wrist  for  the  pulse ! 
He  feels  for  it,  and  ascertains  that  it  beats  no  longer !  It 
is  accomplished.  The  deed  is  done.  He  retreats,  retraces 
his  steps  to  the  window,  passes  out  through  it  as  he  came  in, 
and  escapes.  He  has  done  the  murder.  No  eye  has  seen 
him,  no  ear  has  heard  him.  The  secret  is  his  own,  and  it  is 
safe!"1 

Persuasion  through  a  Typical  Instance.  —  The  third 
method  of  persuasion  through  concreteness  is  by  the  use  of 
a  typical  instance.  This  method  consists  in  driving  home  a 
general  statement  of  truth,  not  by  giving  many  facts  and 
figures,  not  by  the  citation  of  authorities,  and  not  by  any 
rapid  enumeration  of  a  large  number  of  instances;    but  by 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  67-68. 


Persuasion  297 

giving  a  single  typical  instance,  one  that  is  chosen  particu- 
larly for  its  ability  to  stir  the  feelings,  and  one  that  may  be 
presented  in  the  form  of  a  vivid  word-picture. 

This  method  of  persuasion  is  the  favorite  instrument  of  all 
relief  societies  that  call  upon  the  public  to  help  those  who 
are  starving,  those  who  are  sick,  those  who  are  disabled,  and 
those  who  are  homeless.  Its  effect  upon  the  public  is  well 
known  and  hardly  needs  illustration;  for  every  one  knows 
who  lived  through  the  World  War,  for  example,  how,  time 
after  time,  he  was  moved  to  give  aid  by  the  story  of  some 
starving  infant  dying  in  the  arms  of  its  stricken  mother,  who 
herself  sat  helpless  in  the  ruins  of  her  home  among  the  dead 
bodies  of  her  other  children,  all  of  them  victims  of  war, 
through  famine  and  disease. 

An  illustration  of  this  method  of  persuasion  is  found  in 
the  speech  of  David  Paul  Brown  delivered  in  defense  of 
Alexander  William  Holmes  against  a  charge  of  manslaughter 
on  the  high  seas.  In  this  speech,  Brown  drives  home  the 
point  that  Holmes  did  not  voluntarily  and  wantonly  throw 
overboard  certain  shipwrecked  passengers,  because  his  heroic 
conduct  in  the  following  typical  instance  shows  this  to  be 
improbable : 

"But  there  is  still  another  picture  to  which  I  would  in- 
vite, and  upon  which  I  would  fasten,  your  attention.  On 
that  dreadful  night,  the  crew  and  half  the  passengers  having 
taken  to  the  boats,  the  agonizing  voice  of  a  mother  is  heard 
even  beyond  the  tumult  and  the  clamor,  calling  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  her  daughter,  who  in  the  consternation  of  the 
moment  had  been  forgotten,  and  remained  on  board  the 
fatal  ship.  In  an  instant,  you  may  see  a  gallant,  athletic, 
and  powerful  sailor,  passing  hand  over  hand,  by  dint  of  a 
slender  rope,  until  he  regains  the  vessel,  and  you  may  further 


298  Making  the  Plea 

behold  him  upon  the  quarter  deck  in  the  depth  of  the  night, 
surrounded  by  the  wild  and  wasteful  ocean,  with  one  arm 
entwined  around  a  sickly  and  half -naked  girl,  while,  with  the 
other,  he  bravely  swings  himself  and  his  almost  lifeless  bur- 
den, by  means  of  the  '  boat  tackle  falls/  from  the  stern  of 
the  sinking  ship  into  the  boat  below,  and  at  once  restores 
the  child  to  the  open  arms  and  yearning  heart  of  the  mother. 
Yet  to-day,  I  say  it  to  the  disgrace  of  the  law,  after  months 
of  solitary  imprisonment,  you  here  see  that  self -same  heroic 
sailor  arraigned  upon  the  odious  charge  of  having  voluntarily 
and  wantonly  deprived  a  fellow-creature  of  his  life;  and 
that,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  the  charge  that  /  am  to  argue 
and  you  are  to  determine."  l 

Persuasion  through  Contrasted  Types.  —  The  fourth 
method  of  persuasion  through  concreteness  is  by  the  use  of 
contrasted  types.  This  method  is  essentially  the  same  as  the 
method  of  persuasion  through  a  typical  instance;  and  yet 
it  differs  from  this  latter  method,  in  the  fact  that  it  employs 
two  typical  instances,  one  of  which  is  held  in  contrast  with 
the  other. 

An  illustration  of  this  method  of  persuasion  is  found  in  the 
speech  of  Lewis  Cass  delivered  in  his  debate  with  Calhoun 
on  the  Ten-Regiment  Bill  during  the  Mexican  War.  In 
this  speech,  Cass  defended  the  American  soldier  in  Mexico 
against  charges  of  atrocity  by  introducing  the  following 
contrasted  types : 

"A  Mexican  horseman  rides  over  the  battlefield,  thrust- 
ing his  lance  through  the  helpless  wounded,  gleaning  with 
savage  ferocity  in  the  harvest  where  the  Great  Reaper  him- 
self had  passed  and  spared ;  while  the  American  soldier,  in 
the  same  scene  of  carnage,  stoops  down,  and,  raising  his 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  129. 


Persuasion  299 

prostrate  foe,  pours  the  content  of  his  canteen  into  his 
parched  lips  and  recalls  his  fainting  spirit  to  bless  the  gen- 
erous enemy.  This  picture  is  at  the  same  time  a  bright  and 
a  dark  one,  but  it  marks  both  now  and  forever,  the  character- 
istics of  the  two  armies,  and  I  commend  it  to  all  who  doubt 
the  humanity  of  the  American  soldier,  or  the  cruelty  of  the 
Mexican."  x 

Persuasion  through  Striking  Analogies.  —  The  fifth  and 
last  method  of  persuasion  through  concreteness  is  by  the  use 
of  striking  analogies.2  This  method  consists  in  the  use  of 
similes,  metaphors,  anecdotes,  andi  parables  to  illustrate 
and  drive  home  a  main  point  in  a  speech. 

No  method  is  more  common  than  this,  and  yet  no  method 
has  its  path  strewn  with  a  greater  number  of  failures.  These 
failures  are  due  to  the  fact  that  the  speaker  does  not  use 
analogies  that  arise  spontaneously,  but  uses  rather  anal- 
ogies that  he  constructs  with  labor  and  pulls  by  the  heels  into 
his  speech.  If  analogy  is  to  be  striking,  it  must  be  sponta- 
neous; its  application  should  be  apparent  instantly;  and 
its  terms  should  need  no  explanation. 

This  method  was  used  by  Burke  most  effectively  in  his 
speech  on  Conciliation  with  the  American  Colonies,  when  he 
said: 

"  Three  thousand  miles  of  ocean  lie  between  you  and  them. 
No  contrivance  can  prevent  the  effect  of  this  distance  in 
weakening  government.  Seas  roll,  and  months  pass,  be- 
tween the  order  and  the  execution ;  and  the  want  of  a  speedy 
explanation  of  a  single  point  is  enough  to  defeat  a  whole 
system.    You  have,  indeed,  winged  ministers  of  vengeance, 


1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  235- 
236. 

2  See  pages  95-97. 


300  Making  the  Plea 

who  carry  your  bolts  in  their  pounces  to  the  remotest  verge 
of  the  sea.  But  there  a  power  steps  in  that  limits  the  arro- 
gance of  raging  passions  and  furious  elements,  and  says, 
So  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  farther. 

"  Who  are  you,  that  you  should  fret  and  rage,  and  bite 
the  chains  of  nature?  Nothing  worse  happens  to  you  than 
does  to  all  nations  who  have  extensive  empire ;  and  it  hap- 
pens in  all  the  forms  into  which  empire  can  be  thrown.  In 
large  bodies  the  circulation  of  power  must  be  less  vigorous 
at  the  extremities.  Nature  has  said  it.  The  Turk  cannot 
govern  Egypt  and  Arabia  and  Kurdistan  as  he  governs 
Thrace;  nor  has  he  the  same  dominion  in  Crimea  and  Al- 
giers which  he  has  at  Brusa  and  Smyrna.  Despotism  itself 
is  obliged  to  truck  and  huckster.  The  Sultan  gets  such 
obedience  as  he  can.  He  governs  with  a  loose  rein,  that  he 
may  govern  at  all ;  and  the  whole  of  the  force  and  vigor  of 
his  authority  in  his  centre  is  derived  from  a  prudent  relaxa- 
tion in  all  his  borders. "  l 

This  method  was  used  by  Lord  Macaulay  in  his  speech  on 
the  Reform  Bill,  when  he  said : 

"  Sir,  this  alarming  discontent  is  not  the  growth  of  a  day, 
or  of  a  year.  If  there  be  any  symptoms  by  which  it  is  possi- 
ble to  distinguish  the  chronic  diseases  of  the  body  politic 
from  its  passing  inflammations,  all  those  symptoms  exist 
in  the  present  case.  The  taint  has  been  gradually  be- 
coming more  extensive  and  more  malignant,  through  the 
whole  lifetime  of  two  generations.  We  have  tried  ano-( 
dynes.  We  have  tried  cruel  operations.  What  are  we  to 
try  now?  "2 

This  method  was  used  by  Lincoln  in  his  speech  at  Spring- 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  262. 


Persuasion  301 

field    preceding    the    Lincoln-Douglas    Debates,   when    he 
said: 

"  'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand'  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved  —  I  do 
not  expect  the  house  to  fall  —  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to 
be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 
Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread 
of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction;  or  its 
advocates  will  push  it  forward,  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  states,  old  as  well  as  new  —  North  as  well 
as  South."  l 

Jeremiah  S.  Black  used  this  method  when,  in  his  speech 
defending  The  Right  of  Trial  by  Jury,  he  said  : 

"  I  would  only  say,  in  order  to  prevent  misapprehension, 
that  I  think  it  is  precisely  in  a  time  of  war  and  civil  commo- 
tion that  we  should  double  the  guards  upon  the  Constitu- 
tion. If  the  sanitary  regulations  which  defend  the  health  of 
a  city  are  ever  to  be  relaxed,  it  ought  certainly  not  to  be  done 
when  pestilence  is  abroad.  When  the  Mississippi  shrinks 
within  its  natural  channel  and  creeps  lazily  along  the  bottom, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  adjoining  shore  have  no  need  of  a 
dyke  to  save  them  from  inundation.  But  when  the  boom- 
ing flood  comes  down  from  above,  and  swells  into  a  volume 
which  rises  high  above  the  plain  on  either  side,  then  a  cre- 
vasse in  the  levee  becomes  a  most  serious  thing.  So,  in 
peaceable  and  quiet  times,  our  legal  rights  are  in  little  dan- 
ger of  being  over-borne;  but  when  the  wave  of  arbitrary 
power  lashes  itself  into  violence  and  rage,  and  goes  surging 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  p.  133. 


302  Making  the  Plea 

up  against  the  barriers  which  were  made  to  confine  it,  then 
we  need  the  whole  strength  of  an  unbroken  Constitution  to 
save  us  from  destruction."  x 

George  William  Curtis  used  this  method  also  in  his  speech 
entitled  The  Public  Duty  of  Educated  Men,  when  he  said : 

"  It  is  for  you  to  assert  the  independence  and  the  dignity 
of  the  individual  citizen,  and  to  prove  that  party  was  made 
for  the  voter,  not  the  voter  for  party.  When  you  are  an- 
grily told  that  if  you  erect  your  personal  whim  against  the 
regular  party  behest,  you  make  representative  government 
impossible  by  refusing  to  accept  its  conditions,  hold  fast  by 
your  own  conscience  and  let  the  party  go.  There  is  not  an 
American  merchant  who  would  send  a  ship  to  sea  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Kidd,  however  skillful  a  sailor  he  might 
be.  Why  should  he  vote  to  send  Captain  Kidd  to  the  leg- 
islature or  to  put  him  in  command  of  the  ship  of  state  be- 
cause his  party  directs?  The  party  which  to-day  nominates 
Captain  Kidd,  will  to-morrow  nominate  Judas  Iscariot; 
and  to-morrow,  as  to-day,  party  spirit  will  spurn  you  as  a 
traitor  for  refusing  to  sell  your  master."2 

In  all  these  different  illustrations  of  persuasion  through 
analogy,  it  is  apparent  that  the  method  of  analogy  may  be 
combined  with  all  the  other  methods  of  persuasion  through 
direct  discourse  and  through  concreteness ;  but  nowhere  is 
this  made  more  apparent  than  in  the  following  quotation 
from  the  speech  by  Wendell  Phillips  on  William  Lloyd  Gar- 
rison: 

"In  1842  Lindley  had  finished  the  railway  at  Hamburg, 
and  was  to  open  it  when  the  great  fire  broke  out.     The  self- 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  500. 

2  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  p.  205. 


Persuasion  303 

satisfied  citizens  called  the  Englishman  to  see  how  well  their 
sixpenny  squirts  and  old  pails  could  put  out  the  fire.  But 
it  raged  on,  till  one-quarter  of  the  city  was  in  ruins.  •  Myn- 
heer Lindley,  what  shall  we  do?  '  cried  the  frightened  sena- 
tors of  Hamburg.  '  Let  me  blow  up  a  couple  of  streets/ 
he  answered.  '  Never,  never,  never/  Another  day  of 
flames.  (  Mynheer  Lindley,  blow  up  the  streets  and  wel- 
come ;  only  save  us/  [  Too  late/  replied  the  engineer. 
1  To  do  that  I  must  blow  up  the  Senate  House  itself/  They 
debated  an  hour,  and  then  said :  '  Mynheer  Lindley,  save 
us  in  your  own  way/  In  one  hour  the  Senate  House  was 
in  ruins  and  the  fire  ceased. 

"  '  Be  quiet,  Mr.  Garrison/  said  1830.  '  Don't  you  see 
our  sixpenny  colonization  society,  and  our  old-fashioned 
pails  of  church  resolves,  nicely  copied  and  laid  away  in  ves- 
tries? See  how  we'll  put  out  this  fire  of  slavery/  But  it 
burned  on  fiercer,  fiercer.  '  What  shall  we  do  now?  •  asked 
startled  Whiggery.  '  Keep  the  new  states  free,  abolish 
slavery  in  the  District,  shut  the  door  against  Texas/  '  Too 
much/  said  Whiggery.  '  We  are  busy  now  making  Web- 
ster President  and  proving  that  Mr.  Everett  never  had  an 
anti-slavery  idea/  But  the  flames  roll  on.  Republicanism 
proposes  to  blow  up  a  street  or  two.  No,  no ;  nothing  but 
to  blow  up  the  Senate  House  will  do ;  and  soon  frightened 
Hamburg  cries :  l  Mynheer  Garrison,  save  us  on  your  own 
terms/  " 1 

V.  Persuasion  through  Appeal  to  Motives 

Persuasion  through  Associating  the  Proposition  with 
Motives  That  Lead  to  Its  Acceptance.  —  In  order  to  per- 
suade an  audience  of  the  truth  of  a  proposition,  a  speaker 
must    aim    to  accomplish  three    results:    First,  to  inspire 

1  Quoted  from  Shurter,  Rhetoric  of  Oratory,  p.  166. 


304  Making  the  Plea 

confidence  in,  and  respect  for,  his  own  personality ;  second, 
to  bring  the  subject  of  controversy  vividly  within  the  ex- 
perience of  his  hearers ;  and  third,  to  associate  the  prop- 
osition with  motives  among  his  hearers  that  will  lead  to  its 
acceptance. 

A  complete  enumeration  of  all  the  different  motives  to 
which  a  speaker  may  appeal  would  be  impracticable ;  but 
the  motives  to  which  speakers  do  commonly  appeal  maybe 
listed  as  follows  under  the  fundamental  emotions  of  love  and 
hate : 

Love  Hate 

1.  Sympathy  1.  Indignation 

2.  Admiration  2.  Contempt 

3.  Gratitude  3.  Revenge 

4.  Hope  4.  Fear 

5.  Pride  5.  Shame 

Any  of  these  emotions  may  be  used  either  separately  or 
jointly  as  the  basis  of  an  appeal ;  but  just  what  ones  should 
be  used  in  any  given  case  will  depend  always  on  the  character 
of  the  audience  and  the  facts  in  the  case. 

Persuasion  through  Sympathy.  — No  method  of  per- 
suasion is  more  common  in  oratory  than  an  appeal  for  sym- 
pathy. This  method  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the  following 
quotation  from  Henry  W.  Grady's  speech  on  The  New  South. 

In  this  illustration,  as  in  all  that  follow,  the  student  should 
note  carefully  the  continual  use  of  the  principles  of  direct 
discourse  and  concreteness. 

"Dr.  Talmage  has  drawn  for  you,  with  a  master's  hand, 
the  picture  of  your  returning  armies.  He  has  told  you  how, 
in  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  war,  they  came  back  to 
you,   marching  with   proud   and   victorious   tread,   reading 


Persuasion  305 

their  glory  in  a  nation's  eyes !  Will  you  bear  with  me  while 
I  tell  you  of  another  army  that  sought  its  home  in  defeat  and 
not  in  victory  —  in  pathos  and  not  in  splendor,  but  in  glory 
that  equaled  yours,  and  to  hearts  as  loving,  as  ever  welcomed 
heroes  home. 

"  Let  me  picture  to  you  the  footsore  Confederate  soldier, 
as,  buttoning  up  in  his  faded  gray  jacket  the  parole  which 
was  to  bear  testimony  to  his  children  of  his  fidelity  and  faith, 
he  turned  his  face  southward  from  Appomattox  in  April, 
1865.  Think  of  him  as  ragged,  half-starved,  heavy-hearted, 
enfeebled  by  want  and  wounds;  having  fought  to  exhaus- 
tion, he  surrenders  his  gun,  wrings  the  hand  of  his  comrades 
in  silence,  and,  lifting  his  tear-stained  and  pallid  face  for  the 
last  time  to  the  graves  that  dot  the  old  Virginia  hills,  pulls 
his  gray  cap  over  his  brow  and  begins  the  slow  and  painful 
journey.  What  does  he  find?  — Let  me  ask  you  who  went 
to  your  homes  eager  to  find,  in  the  welcome  you  had  justly 
earned,  full  payment  for  four  years'  sacrifice  —  what  does 
he  find  when,  having  followed  the  battle-stained  cross  against 
overwhelming  odds,  dreading  death  not  half  so  much  as  sur- 
render, he  reaches  the  home  he  left  so  prosperous  and  beau- 
tiful? He  finds  his  house  in  ruins,  his  farm  devastated,  his 
slaves  free,  his  stock  killed,  his  barn  empty,  his  trade  de- 
stroyed, his  money  worthless;  his  social  system,  feudal  in 
its  magnificence,  swept  away;  his  people  without  law  or 
legal  status ;  his  comrades  slain,  and  the  burdens  of  others 
heavy  on  his  shoulders.  Crushed  by  defeat,  his  very  tra- 
ditions gone ;  without  money,  credit,  employment,  material 
training;  and  besides  all  this,  confronted  with  the  gravest 
problem  that  ever  met  human  intelligence  —  the  establish- 
ing of  a  status  for  the  vast  body  of  his  liberated  slaves. 

"  What  does  he  do  —  this  hero  in  gray,  with  a  heart  of 
gold?     Does  he  sit  down  in  sullenness  and  despair?    Not 


306  Making  the  Plea 

for  a  day.  Surely  God,  who  had  stripped  him  of  his  pros- 
perity, inspired  him  in  his  adversity.  As  ruin  was  never 
before  so  overwhelming,  never  was  restoration  swifter.  The 
soldier  stepped  from  the  trenches  into  the  furrow;  horses 
that  had  charged  Federal  guns  marched  before  the  plow, 
and  fields  that  ran  red  with  human  blood  in  April  were  green 
with  the  harvest  in  June;  women  reared  in  luxury  cut  up 
their  dresses  and  made  breeches  for  their  husbands,  and,  with 
a  patience  and  heroism  that  fit  women  always  as  a  garment, 
gave  their  hands  to  work.  There  was  little  bitterness  in  all 
this.     Cheerfulness  and  frankness  prevailed."  * 

Persuasion  through  Indignation.  —  Not  only  is  sympathy 
a  strong  motive  to  which  the  speaker  may  appeal,  but  so 
also  is  indignation  when  it  is  righteously  invoked.  An  il- 
lustration of  persuasion  through  an  appeal  to  this  emotion 
is  found  in  the  following  quotation  from  Lord  Chatham's 
speech  on  American  Affairs.  This  burst  of  indignation  was 
prompted  by  a  proposal  to  employ  Indians  in  the  war  against 
the  colonists,  on  the  ground  that  this  was  justifiable  because 
they  were  the  means  "  that  God  and  Nature  put  into  our 
hands."     In  reply  Chatham  said : 

"  I  am  astonished,  shocked  to  hear  such  principles  con- 
fessed —  to  hear  them  avowed  in  this  House,  or  in  this  coun- 
try; principles  equally  unconstitutional,  inhuman,  and  un- 
christian ! 

"  My  Lords,  I  did  not  intend  to  have  encroached  again 
upon  your  attention,  but  I  cannot  repress  my  indignation. 
I  feel  myself  impelled  by  every  duty.  My  Lords,  we  are 
called  upon  as  members  of  this  House,  as  men,  as  Christian 
men,  to  protest  against  such  notions  standing  near  the 
Throne,  polluting  the  ear  of  Majesty.     '  That  God  and  Na- 

1  Select  Orations  (Macmillan),  pp.  237-239. 


Persuasion  307 

ture  put  into  our  hands  ! '  I  know  not  what  ideas  that  lord 
may  entertain  of  God  and  Nature,  but  I  know  that  such 
abominable  principles  are  equally  abhorrent  to  religion  and 
humanity.  What !  to  attribute  the  sacred  sanction  of  God 
and  Nature  to  the  massacres  of  the  Indian  scalping-knife  — 
to  the  cannibal  savage,  torturing,  murdering,  roasting,  and 
eating  —  literally,  my  Lords,  eating  the  mangled  victims  of 
his  barbarous  battles !  Such  horrible  notions  shock  every 
precept  of  religion,  divine  or  natural,  and  every  generous 
feeling  of  humanity.  And  my  Lords,  they  shock  every 
sentiment  of  honor ;  they  shock  me  as  a  lover  of  honorable 
war,  and  a  detester  of  murderous  barbarity. 

"  These  abominable  principles,  and  this  more  abominable 
avowal  of  them,  demand  the  most  decisive  indignation.  I 
call  upon  that  right  reverend  bench,  those  holy  ministers  of 
the  Gospel,  and  pious  pastors  of  our  Church  —  I  conjure 
them  to  join  in  the  holy  work,  and  vindicate  the  religion  of 
their  God.  I  appeal  to  the  wisdom  and  the  law  of  this 
learned  bench  to  defend  and  support  the  justice  of  this  coun- 
try. I  call  upon  the  Bishops  to  interpose  the  unsullied 
sanctity  of  their  lawn ;  upon  the  learned  Judges,  to  inter- 
pose the  purity  of  their  ermine,  to  save  us  from  this  pollu- 
tion. I  call  upon  the  honor  of  your  Lordships  to  reverence 
the  dignity  of  your  ancestors,  and  to  maintain  your  own.  I 
call  upon  the  spirit  of  humanity  of  my  country  to  vindicate 
the  national  character.  I  invoke  the  genius  of  the  Consti- 
tution. From  the  tapestry  that  adorns  these  walls,  the 
immortal  ancestor  of  this  noble  lord  frowns  with  indignation 
at  the  disgrace  of  his  country.  In  vain  he  led  your  victorious 
fleets  against  the  boasted  Armada  of  Spain ;  in  vain  he  de- 
fended and  established  the  honor,  the  liberties,  the  religion 
of  this  country,  against  arbitrary  cruelties.  To  turn 
forth   into   our  settlements,   among   our   ancient   connec- 


308  Making  the  Plea 

tions,  friends,  and  relations,  the  merciless  cannibal,  thirst- 
ing for  the  blood  of  man,  woman,  and  child!  to  send 
forth  the  infidel  savage  —  against  whom?  against  our  Prot- 
estant brethren;  to  lay  waste  their  country,  to  deso- 
late their  dwellings,  and  extirpate  their  race  and  name  with 
these  horrible  hell-hounds  of  savage  war  —  hell-hounds, 
I  say,  of  savage  war!  Spain  armed  herself  with  blood- 
hounds to  extirpate  the  wretched  natives  of  America,  and 
we  improve  even  on  the  inhuman  example  of  Spanish  cruelty ; 
we  turn  loose  these  savage  hell-hounds  against  our  brethren 
and  countrymen  in  America,  of  the  same  language,  laws, 
liberties,  and  religion,  endeared  to  us  by  every  tie  that  should 
sanctify  humanity."  * 

Persuasion  through  Admiration  and  Contempt.  —  Appeals 
to  contempt  in  oratory  are  seldom  made ;  but,  when  they  are 
made,  they  may  be  given  strength  usually  by  being  associated 
with  an  equally  strong  appeal  to  admiration.  An  illustration 
of  such  a  combination  of  appeals  is  found  in  the  following 
quotation  from  the  conclusion  of  Burke's  speech  on  Concili- 
ation : 

"  All  this,  I  know  well  enough,  will  sound  wild  and  chi- 
merical to  the  profane  herd  of  those  vulgar  and  mechanical 
politicians  who  have  no  place  among  us ;  a  sort  of  people 
who  think  that  nothing  exists  but  what  is  gross  and  material, 
and  who,  therefore,  far  from  being  qualified  to  be  directors 
of  the  great  movement  of  empire,  are  not  fit  to  turn  a  wheel 
in  the  machine.  But  to  men  truly  initiated  and  rightly 
taught,  these  ruling  and  master  principles  which,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  such  men  as  I  have  mentioned,  have  no  substantial  ex- 
istence, are  in  truth  everything,  and  all  in  all.  Magnanim- 
ity in  politics  is  not  seldom  the  truest  wisdom ;   and  a  great 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  86-88. 


Persuasion  309 

empire  and  little  minds  go  ill  together.  If  we  are  conscious 
of  our  station,  and  glow  with  zeal  to  fill  our  places  as  be- 
comes our  situation  and  ourselves,  we  ought  to  auspicate 
all  our  public  proceedings  on  America  with  the  old  warning 
of  the  church,  Sursum  corda!  We  ought  to  elevate  our 
minds  to  the  greatness  of  that  trust  to  which  the  order  of 
providence  has  called  us.  By  adverting  to  the  dignity  of 
this  high  calling,  our  ancestors  have  turned  a  savage  wilder- 
ness into  a  glorious  empire,  and  have  made  the  most  exten- 
sive and  the  only  honorable  conquests  —  not  by  destroying, 
but  by  promoting  the  wealth,  the  number,  the  happiness, 
of  the  human  race.  Let  us  get  an  American  revenue  as  we 
have  got  an  American  empire.  English  privileges  have 
made  it  all  that  it  is ;  English  privileges  alone  will  make  it 
all  it  can  be."  l 

Persuasion  through  Gratitude.  —  Among  all  the  appeals 
that  may  be  made  to  an  audience,  an  appeal  to  show  grati- 
tude is  often  one  of  the  most  effective.  Such  an  appeal  was 
made  by  Henry  W.  Grady  in  his  speech  entitled,  The  Race 
Problem  in  the  South.     In  this  speech,  he  said  : 

"  The  love  we  feel  for  that  race  you  cannot  measure  nor 
comprehend.  As  I  attest  it  here,  the  spirit  of  my  old  black 
mammy  from  her  home  up  there  looks  down  to  bless,  and 
through  the  tumult  of  this  night  steals  the  sweet  music  of 
her  croonings  as  thirty  years  ago  she  held  me  in  her  black 
arms  and  led  me  smiling  into  sleep.  This  scene  vanishes  as 
I  speak,  and  I  catch  a  vision  of  an  old  Southern  home,  with 
its  lofty  pillars,  and  its  white  pigeons  fluttering  down  through 
the  golden  air.  I  see  women  with  strained  and  anxious 
faces  and  children  alert  yet  helpless.     I  see  night  come  down 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  73-74. 


310  Making  the  Plea 

with  its  dangers  and  its  apprehensions,  and  in  a  big  homely 
room  I  feel  on  my  tired  head  the  touch  of  loving  hands  — 
now  worn  and  wrinkled,  but  fairer  to  me  yet  than  the  hands 
of  mortal  woman,  and  stronger  yet  to  lead  me  than  the  hands 
of  mortal  man  —  as  they  lay  a  mother's  blessing  there  while 
at  her  knees,  the  truest  altar  I  yet  have  found,  I  thank  God 
that  she  is  safe  in  her  sanctuary,  because  her  slaves,  sentinel 
in  the  silent  cabin  or  guard  at  her  chamber  door,  put  a 
black  man's  loyalty  between  her  and  danger. 

"  I  catch  another  vision.  The  crisis  of  battle  —  a  soldier 
struck,  staggering,  fallen.  I  see  a  slave,  scuffling  through 
the  smoke,  winding  his  black  arms  about  the  fallen  form, 
reckless  of  the  hurtling  death,  bending  his  trusty  face  to 
catch  the  words  that  tremble  on  the  stricken  lips,  so  wres- 
tling meantime  with  agony  that  he  would  lay  down  his  life 
in  his  master's  stead.  I  see  him  by  the  weary  bedside,  min- 
istering with  uncomplaining  patience,  praying  with  all  his 
humble  heart  that  God  will  lift  his  master  up,  until  death 
comes  in  mercy  and  in  honor  to  still  the  soldier's  agony  and 
seal  the  soldier's  life.  I  see  him  by  the  open  grave,  mute, 
motionless,  uncovered,  suffering,  for  the  death  of  him  who  in 
life  fought  against  his  freedom.  I  see  him  when  the  mound 
is  heaped  and  the  great  drama  of  that  life  is  closed,  turn 
away  and  with  downcast  eyes  and  uncertain  step  start  out 
into  new  and  strange  fields,  faltering,  struggling,  but  moving 
on,  until  his  shambling  figure  is  lost  in  the  light  of  this  better 
and  brighter  day.  And  from  the  grave  comes  a  voice  say- 
ing :  '  Follow  him !  Put  your  arms  about  him  in  his  need, 
even  as  he  put  his  about  me.  Be  his  friend  as  he  was  mine.' 
And  out  into  this  new  world  —  strange  to  me  as  to  him, 
dazzling,  bewildering  both  —  I  follow  !  And  may  God  for- 
get my  people  when  they  forget  him."  * 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  230-231. 


Persuasion  311 

Persuasion  through  Revenge.  —  In  vivid  contrast  with 
persuasion  through  gratitude  is  persuasion  through  the 
equally  strong  emotion  of  revenge.  An  illustration  of  this 
method  of  persuasion  is  found  in  the  speech  of  Patrick 
Henry  on  the  subject  of  the  Right  to  Confiscate  British 
Debts.     In  this  speech  Henry  said : 

"  There  is  an  essential  variance  between  the  late  war  and 
common  wars.  In  common  wars,  children  are  not  obliged 
to  fight  against  their  fathers,  nor  brothers  against  brothers, 
nor  kindred  against  kindred.  Our  men  were  compelled, 
contrary  to  the  most  sacred  ties  of  humanity,  to  shed  the 
blood  of  their  dearest  connections.  In  common  wars,  con- 
tending parties  respect  municipal  rights,  and  leave,  even  to 
those  they  invade,  the  means  of  paying  debts  and  com- 
plying with  obligations;  they  touch  not  private  property. 
For  example,  when  a  British  army  lands  in  France,  they 
plunder  nothing ;  they  pay  for  what  they  have,  and  respect 
the  tribunals  of  justice,  unless  they  have  a  mind  to  be 
called  a  savage  nation.  Were  we  thus  treated?  Were  we 
permitted  to  exercise  industry  and  to  collect  debts  by  which 
we  might  be  enabled  to  pay  British  creditors?  Had  we  a 
power  to  pursue  commerce?  No,  sir.  What  became  of 
our  agriculture  ?  Our  inhabitants  were  mercilessly  and  bru- 
tally plundered,  and  our  enemies  professed  to  maintain  their 
army  by  those  means  only.  Our  slaves  carried  away,  our 
crops  burned,  a  cruel  war  carried  on  against  our  agriculture 
—  disability  to  pay  debts  produced  by  pillage  and  devas- 
tation, contrary  to  every  principle  of  national  law.  From 
that  series  of  plenty  in  which  we  had  been  accustomed  to 
live  and  to  revel,  we  were  plunged  into  every  species 
of  human  calamity !  our  lives  attacked,  charge  of  rebels 
fixed    upon    us,    confiscation    and     attainder    denounced 


312  Making  the  Plea 

against  the  whole  continent,  and  he  that  was  called 
king  of  England  sat  judge  upon  our  case.  He  pronounced 
his  judgment;  not  like  those  to  whom  poetic  fancy  has 
given  existence;  not  like  him  who  sits  in  the  infernal  re- 
gions and  dooms  to  the  Stygian  lake  those  spirits  who  de- 
serve it,  because  he  spares  the  innocent  and  sends  some  to 
the  fields  of  Elysium ;  not  like  him  who  sat  in  ancient  im- 
perial Rome  and  wished  the  people  had  but  one  neck,  that 
he  might  at  one  blow  strike  off  their  heads  and  spare  himself 
the  trouble  of  carnage  and  massacre,  because  one  city  would 
have  satisfied  his  vengeance ;  not  like  any  of  his  fellow-men ! 
—  for  nothing  would  satiate  his  sanguinary  ferocity  but  the 
indiscriminate  destruction  of  the  whole  continent,  involving 
the  innocent  with  the  guilty.  Yes ;  he  sat  in  judgment  with 
his  coadjutors,  and  pronounced  proscription,  attainder, 
and  forfeiture  against  men,  women,  and  even  children  at 
the  breast !  Is  not  this  description  pointedly  true  in  all  its 
parts?  And  who  were  his  coadjutors  and  executioners  in 
this  strange  court  of  judicature?  Like  the  fiends  of  poetic 
imagination  —  Hessians,  Indians  and  Negroes  were  his 
coadjutors  and  executioners.  Is  there  anything  in  this 
sad  detail  of  offenses  which  is  unfounded  ?  —  anything 
not  enforced  by  the  act  of  Parliament  against  America? 
We  were  thereby  driven  out  of  their  protection  and  branded 
by  the  epithet  '  rebels  9 !  -The  term  rebel  may  not  now  ap- 
pear in  all  its  train  of  horrid  consequences.  We  know  that 
when  a  person  is  called  rebel  by  that  government,  his  goods 
and  life  are  forfeited,  and  his  very  blood  pronounced  to  be 
corrupted,  and  the  severity  of  the  punishment  entailed  on 
his  posterity.  To  whom  may  we  apply  for  the  verity  of  this  ? 
The  jurisprudence  and  history  of  that  nation  prove  that,  when 
they  speak  of  rebels,  nothing  but  blood  will  satisfy  them. 
Is  there  nothing  hideous  in  this  part  of  the  portrait?    It  is 


Persuasion  313 

unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  mankind.  Though  I  have 
respect  for  individuals  of  that  nation,  my  duty  constrains 
me  to  speak  thus. 

"  When  we  contemplate  this  mode  of  warfare,  and  the  sen- 
timents of  the  writers  on  natural  law  on  this  subject,  we  are 
justified  in  saying  that,  in  this  revolutionary  war,  we  had  a 
right  to  consider  British  debts  as  subject  to  confiscation, 
and  to  seize  the  property  of  those  who  originated  that  war."  x 

Persuasion  through  Hope  and  Fear.  —  A  favorite  method 
of  all  orators  in  persuasion  is  to  hold  out  brilliant  prospects 
to  be  hoped  for  if  their  proposition  is  adopted  and  great  ca- 
lamity to  be  feared  if  any  contrary  proposition  supported  by 
their  opponents  is  adopted  in  its  stead. 

This  method  of  persuasion  was  used  with  striking  success 
by  Fisher  Ames  in  his  speech  advocating  the  ratification  of 
the  Jay  Treaty,  when  he  appealed  to  the  dread  of  Indian 
Massacres  in  case  the  treaty  were  rejected. 

"  On  this  theme,"  said  Ames,  "  my  emotions  are  unutter- 
able. If  I  could  find  words  for  them,  if  my  powers  bore  any 
proportion  of  my  zeal,  I  would  swell  my  voice  to  such  a  note 
of  remonstrance  it  should  reach  every  log  house  beyond  the 
mountains.  I  would  say  to  the  inhabitants:  wake  from 
your  false  security;  your  cruel  dangers,  your  more  cruel 
apprehensions  are  soon  to  be  renewed ;  the  wounds,  yet 
unhealed,  are  to  be  torn  open  again ;  in  the  day  time  your 
path  through  the  woods  will  be  ambushed ;  the  darkness  of 
midnight  will  glitter  with  the  blaze  of  your  dwellings.  You 
are  a  father  —  the  blood  of  your  sons  shall  fatten  your 
cornfield;  you  are  a  mother  —  the  war-whoop  shall  wake 
the  sleep  of  the  cradle.  .  . 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  15-17. 


314  •       Making  the  Plea 

"By  rejecting  the  posts,  we  light  the  savage  fires  —  we 
bind  the  victims.  This  day  we  undertake  to  render  account 
to  the  widows  and  orphans  whom  our  decision  will  make,  to 
the  wretches  that  will  be  roasted  at  the  stake,  to  our  coun- 
try, and  I  do  not  deem  it  too  serious  to  say,  to  conscience 
and  to  God.  We  are  answerable,  and  if  duty  be  anything 
more  than  a  word  of  imposture,  if  conscience  be  not  a  bug- 
bear, we  are  preparing  to  make  ourselves  as  wretched  as  our 
country. 

u  There  is  no  mistake  in  this  case  —  there  can  be  none. 
Experience  has  already  been  the  prophet  of  events  and  the 
cries  of  future  victims  have  already  reached  us.  The  West- 
ern inhabitants  are  not  a  silent  and  uncomplaining  sacri- 
fice. The  voice  of  humanity  issues  from  the  shade  of  their 
wilderness.  It  exclaims  that,  while  one  hand  is  held  up  to 
reject  this  treaty,  the  other  grasps  a  tomahawk.  It  sum- 
mons our  imagination  to  the  scenes  that  will  open.  It  is 
no  great  effort  of  the  imagination  to  conceive  that  events  so 
near  are  already  begun.  I  can  fancy  that  I  listen  to  the 
yells  of  savage  vengeance  and  the  shrieks  of  torture.  Al- 
ready they  seem  to  sigh  in  the  west  wind  —  already  they 
mingle  with  every  echo  from  the  mountains/ ' 1 

Webster,  also,  used  this  method  in  the  closing  words  of 
his  oration  in  Reply  to  Hayne,  when  he  said : 

"  I  have  not  allowed  myself,  Sir,  to  look  beyond  the  Union 
to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I 
have  not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty, 
when  the  bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asun- 
der, I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to  hang  over  the  preci- 
pice of  disunion,  to  see  whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  can 

1  Bryan,  World's  Famous  Orations,  VIII,  pp.  160-163. 


Persuasion  315 

fathom  the  depth  of  the  abyss  below;  nor  could  I  regard 
him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the  affairs  of  this  government, 
whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly  bent  on  considering,  not 
how  the  Union  should  be  best  preserved,  but  how  tolerable 
might  be  the  condition  of  the  people  when  it  should  be  broken 
up  and  destroyed.  While  the  Union  lasts,  we  have  high, 
exciting,  gratifying  prospects  spread  out  before  us,  —  for 
us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that,  I  seek  not  to  pen- 
etrate the  veil.  God  grant  that,  in  my  day,  at  least,  that 
curtain  may  not  rise !  God  grant  that  on  my  vision  never 
may  be  opened  what  lies  behind !  When  my  eyes  shall  be 
turned  to  behold  for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I 
not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  fragments 
of  a  once  glorious  Union ;  on  States  dissevered,  discordant, 
belligerent ;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it 
may  be,  in  fraternal  blood !  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lin- 
gering glance  rather  behold  the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  Re- 
public, now  known  and  honored  throughout  the  earth,  still 
full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their 
original  lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single 
star  obscured ;  bearing  for  its  motto,  no  such  miserable  in- 
terrogatory as  '  What  is  all  this  worth  ?  '  nor  those  other 
words  of  delusion  and  folly,  '  Liberty  first,  and  Union  after- 
wards ! '  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in  characters  of  liv- 
ing light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float  over  the  * 
sea  and  over  the  land  and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole 
heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American 
heart,  —  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  in- 
separable !  "  * 

Persuasion  through  Pride  and  Shame.  —  The  last  two 
motives  to  which  orators  may  appeal  are  the  motives  of  pride 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  I,  pp.  301-302. 


316  Making  the  Plea 

and    shame.    These    two    motives    usually    are    employed 
jointly,  one  being  used  to  supplement  the  other. 

Lewis  Cass  in  his  debate  with  Calhoun  during  the  Mex- 
ican War  over  the  subject  of  the  Ten-Regiment  Bill  appealed 
to  these  motives  when  he  said : 

"  We  are  also  told,  as  a  dissuasive  against  the  prosecution 
of  this  war,  that  we  can  raise  no  more  men  nor  money,  and 
that  our  exertions  must  expire  from  the  very  lassitude  of  our 
patriotism.  Our  fathers  had  these  difficulties  to  contend 
with  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  magnified,  indeed,  a 
thousand-fold  by  the  circumstances  and  the  nature  of  the 
contest,  and  yet  they  fought  on,  till  they  obtained  peace  for 
themselves,  and  freedom  for  us,  and  founded  upon  a  rock  — 
the  rock,  I  hope,  of  ages  —  this  magnificent  republican 
empire.  We  heard  all  this,  also,  in  1812,  and  yet,  in  the 
face  of  it,  we  conducted  that  war  to  a  glorious  termination. 
We  heard  it  all  again  at  the  commencement  of  this  very  war, 
and  the  time  has  already  passed,  according  to  the  prediction 
of  a  statesman  now  present  of  the  highest  character,  sup- 
ported almost  by  mathematical  calculations,  when  we  were 
to  have  neither  men  nor  money,  and  when  our  cause  was  to 
fail  from  the  failure  of  all  the  means  necessary  to  support  it. 
Now,  sir,  nothing  can  be  worse  than  to  stop  without  attain- 
•  ing  our  object.  If  we  cannot  raise  men  and  cannot  raise 
money,  why,  then,  we  must  stop.  But,  thank  God,  we  have 
not  got  to  that  point  yet,  nor  do  I  believe  we  ever  shall  get 
to  it.  Let  us  not  halt  in  our  course  now,  simply  for  the  fear 
that  we  may  be  compelled  to  halt  there  some  time  or  other. 
Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof.  Sufficient  for 
the  dishonor  of  this  country  will  be  the  time  when  she  will 
practically  exhibit  her  inability  to  maintain  her  rights  and 
her  honor.     Hinc  illae  lachrymae!    Tears   for  taxes,   but 


Persuasion  317 

none  for  wounded  honor !  I  trust  that  I  shall  never  live  to 
see  the  day  when  the  American  people  will  prosecute  an  un- 
just war  because  they  do  not  feel  its  burden,  or  abandon  a 
just  one  because  they  feel  or  fear  its  financial  pressure."  * 

Senator  Beveridge  in  his  debate  with  Senator  Hoar  on 
the  retention  of  the  Philippines  appealed  to  these  motives 
when  he  said : 

"  Do  you  tell  me  that  it  will  cost  us  money?  When  did 
Americans  ever  measure  duty  by  financial  standards?  Do 
you  tell  me  of  the  tremendous  toil  required  to  overcome  the 
vast  difficulties  of  our  task?  What  mighty  work  for  the 
world,  for  humanity,  even  for  ourselves,  has  ever  been  done 
with  ease  ?  Even  our  bread  must  we  eat  by  the  sweat  of  our 
faces.  Why  are  we  charged  with  power  such  as  no  people 
ever  knew,  if  we  are  not  to  use  it  in  a  work  such  as  no  people 
ever  wrought  ?  Who  will  dispute  the  divine  meaning  of  the 
fable  of  the  talents  ? 

"  Do  you  remind  me  of  the  precious  blood  that  must  be 
shed,  the  lives  that  must  be  given,  the  broken  hearts  of  loved 
ones  for  their  slain  ?  And  this  is  indeed  a  heavier  price  than 
all  combined.  And  yet  as  a  nation  every  historic  duty  we 
have  done,  every  achievement  we  have  accomplished,  has 
been  by  the  sacrifice  of  our  noblest  sons.  Every  holy 
memory  that  glorifies  the  flag  is  of  those  heroes  who 
have  died  that  its  onward  march  might  not  be 
stayed.  It  is  the  nation's  dearest  lives  yielded  for 
the  flag  that  makes  it  dear  to  us;  it  is  the  nation's 
most  precious  blood  poured  out  for  it  that  makes  it 
precious  to  us.  That  flag  is  woven  of  heroism,  and 
grief,  of  the  bravery  of  men,  and  women's  tears,  of  righteous-' 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  233- 
234. 


318  Making  the  Plea 

ness  and  battle,  of  sacrifice  and  anguish,  of  triumph  and  of 
glory.  It  is  these  which  make  our  flag  a  holy  thing.  Who 
would  tear  from  that  sacred  banner  the  glorious  legends  of 
a  single  battle  where  it  has  waved  on  land  or  sea?  What 
son  of  a  soldier  of  the  flag  whose  father  fell  beneath  it  on  any 
field  would  surrender  that  proud  record  for  the  heraldry  of 
a  king?  In  the  cause  of  civilization,  in  the  service  of  the 
Republic  anywhere  on  earth,  Americans  consider  wounds 
the  noblest  decorations  man  can  win,  and  count  the  giving 
of  their  lives  a  glad  and  precious  duty. 

"  Pray  God  that  spirit  never  fails.  Pray  God  the  time 
may  never  come  when  Mammon  and  the  love  of  ease  shall 
so  debase  our  blood  that  we  will  fear  to  shed  it  for  the  flag 
and  its  imperial  destiny.  Pray  God  the  time  may  never 
come  when  American  heroism  is  but  a  legend  like  the  story 
of  the  Cid,  American  faith  in  our  mission  and  our  might  a 
dream  dissolved,  and  the  glory  of  our  mighty  race  de- 
parted." * 

To  this  appeal  by  Beveridge,  Hoar  made  the  following 
reply,  based  in  the  same  manner  on  the  motives  of  pride 
and  shame : 

"Mr.  President,  I  know  how  imperfectly  I  have  stated 
this  argument.  I  know  how  feeble  is  a  single  voice  amid 
this  din  and  tempest,  this  delirium  of  empire.  It  may  be 
that  the  battle  for  this  day  is  lost.  But  I  have  an  assured 
faith  in  the  future.  I  have  an  assured  faith  in  justice  and 
the  love  of  liberty  of  the  American  people.  The  stars  in 
their  courses  fight  for  freedom.  The  Ruler  of  the  heavens  is 
on  that  side.  If  the  battle  to-day  go  against  it,  I  appeal  to 
another  day,  not  distant,  and  sure  to  come.     I  appeal  from 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  321- 
322. 


Persuasion  319 

the  clapping  of  hands  and  the  stamping  of  feet  and  the  brawl- 
ing and  the  shouting  to  the  quiet  chamber  where  the  Fathers 
gathered  in  Philadelphia.  I  appeal  from  the  spirit  of  trade 
to  the  spirit  of  liberty.  I  appeal  from  the  Empire  to  the 
Republic.  I  appeal  from  the  millionaire,  and  the  boss,  and 
the  wire-puller,  and  the  manager,  to  the  statesman  of  the 
elder  time,  in  whose  eyes  a  guinea  never  glistened,  who  lived 
and  died  poor,  and  who  left  to  his  children  and  to  his  coun- 
trymen a  good  name,  far  better  than  riches.  I  appeal  from 
the  Present,  bloated  with  material  prosperity,  drunk  with 
the  lust  of  empire,  to  another  and  a  better  age.  I  appeal 
from  the  Present  to  the  Future  and  to  the  Past."  1 

Table  of  Means  for  Securing  Persuasion.  —  So  much  has 
been  said  on  the  subject  of  persuasion,  that  the  student, 
without  doubt,  may  become  confused  by  the  mass  of  theory 
and  illustration.  To  make  clear  at  a  glance  all  the  different 
means  of  securing  persuasion,  the  following  table  is  inserted : 


I.   Persuasion 

A.    To  Make  Proof  Interesting 

1.   By  Inspiring  Confidence  in,  and 

Respect  for,  the 

Personality  of  the  Speaker 

(a)   By  Indirect  Appeal  —  through : 

(I')    Uprightness 

(II')   Earnestness 

(III')   Modesty 

(IV)   Tact 

(V)    Dignity 

(VI')   Humor 

(VII')   Intellectuality 

(VIIIO    Calmness 

(IX-')   Aggressiveness 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  364. 


320  *  Making  the  Plea 

(6)   By  Direct  Appeal  —  through  : 

(I7)    Vindication  of  One's  Self 
(II7)    Attack  on  Character  of  One's  Opponents 
(III7)    Acknowledgment  of  Favors 
(IV7)    Tactful  Praise  of  the  Audience. 
2.   By  Bringing  Subject  Vividly  within  Experience  of 
Hearers 
(a)   By  Direct  Discourse  —  through 

(I7)   The  Pronouns,  We  and   You 
(II7)   The  Imperative  Mood 
(III 7)    Interrogation 
(IV7)   Direct  Quotation 
(6)   By  Concreteness  —  through 
(I7)   Exhibits 
(I7)    Vivid  Word-Pictures 
(III7)    A  Typical  Instance 
(IV7)    Contrasted  Types 
(V7)   Striking  Analogies 
B.    To  Provide  a  Motive  for  the  Acceptance  of  Proof 

1.   By  Associating  the  Proposition  with  Motives  that 
will  Lead  to  its  Acceptance  —  through : 
(a)   Love  —  by : 

(I7)    Sympathy 
(II7)   Admiration 
(III7)   Gratitude 
(IV7)   Hope 
(V7)   Pride 
(6)   Hate  — by: 

(I7)    Indignation 
(II7)    Contempt 
(III7)   Revenge 
(IV7)   Fear 
(V7)   Shame 


Persuasion  321 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Persuasion.  —  Throughout 
the  whole  process  of  pleading  with  an  audience,  a  debater 
must  constantly  keep  in  mind  the  old,  familiar  saying  that 
—  "A  man  convinced  against  his  will,  is  of  the  same  opin- 
ion still."  Conviction,  therefore,  in  a  speech  cannot  be 
relied  upon  alone ;  for  it  does  not  touch  the  will :  it  merely 
affects  the  understanding.  Conviction  is  a  process  that 
must  be  aided  always  by  some  other  process,  some  auxiliary 
process,  some  process  that  touches  the  feelings,  that  stirs  the 
emotions,  and  thereby  leads  to  action  in  the  form  of  accept- 
ing the  proposition  which  the  debater  advocates.  This 
auxiliary  process,  that  may  always  be  relied  upon  to  come 
to  the  aid  of  conviction,  is  called  the  process  of  persuasion. 

No  process,  therefore,  in  debate  is  more  important  than' 
the  process  of  persuasion ;  and  no  pains  should  be  spared  on 
the  part  of  the  debater  to  acquire  skill  in  its  use.  This 
skill,  a  debater  may  acquire  by  observing  carefully  all  the 
principles  that  enable  him  to  inspire  confidence  in,  and  re- 
spect for,  his  own  personality ;  that  enable  him  to  bring  his 
subject  vividly  within  the  experience  of  his  audience;  and 
that  enable  him  to  associate  his  proposition  with  motives 
that  lead  to  its  acceptance. 


CHAPTER  III 

SPEECH-COMPOSITION * 

General  Problems  of  Speech-Composition.  —  When  the 
student  of  debate  has  become  familiar  with  all  the  different 
principles  of  conviction  and  persuasion,  then  he  is  qualified 
to  undertake  a  consideration  of  general  problems  that  must 
be  faced  in  the  process  of  speech-composition.  These  prob- 
lems are :  First,  what  method  he  should  follow  in  the  actual 
work  of  composition ;  and  second,  what  plan  he  should  adopt 
in  composing  the  more  important  divisions  of  his  speech. 

I.  Method  in  Composition 

Use  of  the  Brief  in  Composition. — The  value  of  an  out- 
line as  a  guide  in  the  actual  work  of  composition  needs  no 
demonstration  here  at  this  advanced  stage  in  the  study  of 
debate,2  but  the  value  of  a  brief  as  the  outline  for  a  speech 
needs  careful  consideration.3 

The  brief,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  a  complete  written 
outline  of  all  the  available  proof  in  a  case  assembled  with  the 
purpose  of  establishing  the  truth  of  one  side  of  the  proposi- 
tion, and  arranged  so  as  to  make  clear  at  a  glance  the  rela- 
tion of  each  part  of  the  proof  to  all  other  parts  and  to  the 
proposition. 

The  brief  is  extremely  formal  and  extremely  stereotyped 
in  its  style  of  expression.     It  aims  merely  to  convince,  and 

1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Speech-Composition,  see  Appendix  A. 

2  See  pages  36-37. 

3  See  pages  203-204. 

322 


Speech-Composition  323 

not  to  persuade  the  reader  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  propo- 
sition. It  contains,  furthermore,  all  proof  that  is  necessary 
to  refute  any  argument  that  may  be  advanced  by  an  oppo- 
nent, and,  therefore,  much  proof  that  would  never  be  called 
for  in  a  debate.  By  containing  proof  that  is  both  construc- 
tive and  destructive,  it  contains  also  much  proof  that  the 
brief-maker  should  never  advance  in  debate  until  his  oppo- 
nent has  made  its  presentation  necessary.  For  all  these 
reasons,  the  brief  as  a  whole  in  most  cases  should  not  be  used 
directly  as  the  outline  of  a  speech ;  but  should  be  used,  rather, 
as  a  veritable  mine  of  information  and  proof  upon  which  the 
debater  may  draw  in  securing  materials  for  his  speech. 

The  brief  may  very  well  serve  as  the  basis  of  a  speech  out- 
line ;  but  its  materials,  in  some  cases,  may  need  rearrange- 
ment, in  order  that  they  may  be  better  adjusted  to  the  cir- 
cumstances; and,  in  nearly  all  cases,  many  points  need  to 
be  added  for  the  sake  of  persuasion,  and  many  other  points 
need  to  be  withheld  from  presentation  until  an  opponent 
has  taken  the  initiative  in  raising  them  for  consideration. 

Problems  in  Connection  with  Different  Types  of  Speech- 
Composition.  —  When  a  suitable  outline  has  been  con- 
structed, then  various  problems  arise  in  connection  with  the 
composition  of  different  types  of  speeches  employed  in  de- 
bate. These  problems  are  concerned  with  the  proper  meth- 
ods of  composition :  First,  for  a  written  speech ;  second, 
for  an  extempore  speech ;  and  third,  for  a  rebuttal  speech. 

(A)  Composition  of  the  Written  Speech 

Problems  in  Connection  with  the  Composition  of  a  Writ- 
ten Speech.  —  The  general  problems  in  connection  with  a 
written  speech  are :  First,  when  should  the  work  of  actual 
composition  be  undertaken  ?  —  Second,  should  the  work  of 


324  Making  the  Plea 

composition  be  undertaken  in  installments?  —  And  third, 
what  should  be  accomplished  in  the  successive  drafts  of  the 
speech  ? 

The  Time  to  Be  Selected  for  the  Composition  of  a  Written 
Speech.  —  Most  speakers  and  debaters,  to  their  sorrow  and 
their  grief,  have  a  tendency,  that  is  almost  irresistible,  to 
begin  the  composition  of  their  speeches  before  they  are  in 
any  way  properly  prepared  for  the  task.  The  consequence 
is,  therefore,  that  they  write  hard  and  furiously  for  a  while, 
and  then  consign  their  precious  manuscripts  to  the  waste- 
basket,  knowing  well  that  they  are  worthless,  only  to  begin 
the  foolish  process  over  again  and  to  be  met  with  the  same 
discouraging  failure. 

To  avoid  any  such  waste  of  time  and  energy,  the  speaker 
must  wait  till  the  time  for  composition  is  ripe.  This  time 
will  be,  of  course,  after  all  his  investigation  has  been  com- 
pleted, and  after  he  has  made  an  outline  of  what  he  wants  to 
say. 

Even  then,  however,  the  actual  time  of  composition  may 
need  to  be  postponed  a  little  further ;  for  no  speech  should 
be  composed  until  the  speaker  has  become  so  filled  with  his 
subject  that  it  is  calling  for  expression.  No  speech  should 
be  composed,  either,  until  the  speaker  is  full  of  life  and  en- 
ergy and  entirely  recovered  from  any  fatigue  due  to  his 
labors  of  investigation.  And,  finally,  no  speech  should  be 
composed  until  the  speaker  can  summon  up  before  him  in 
his  mind's  eye  the  actual  audience  that  he  must  face  with 
all  the  demands  that  they  will  make  upon  him. 

In  postponing  the  time  of  composition,  however,  there  is 
only  one  caution  to  be  observed.  The  speaker  should  never 
delay  too  long,  so  that  he  rushes  from  his  desk  to  the  plat- 
form with  the  ink  still  wet  upon  his  manuscript,  or  so  that 


Speech-Composition  325 

he  has  no  period  of  rest  between  the  labor  of  his  composition 
and  the  delivery  of  his  speech.  The  time  must  always  be 
selected  so  that  the  speaker  may  become  familiar  with  his 
manuscript ;  and,  if  his  speech  is  memorized,  so  that  he  may 
rest  between  the  time  of  memorizing  and  the  time  for  de- 
livery. If  this  most  important  caution  is  not  observed, 
little  short  of  a  miracle  will  save  the  speaker  from  confu- 
sion, stage-fright,  and  collapse. 

Composition  by  Installments.  —  Most  beginners  in  speak- 
ing assume,  without  question,  that  a  speech  may  be  com- 
posed in  installments ;  and,  then,  on  the  basis  of  this  assump- 
tion, they  proceed  to  commit  the  greatest  of  all  follies  : 
namely,  to  endeavor  to  build  up  a  speech,  word  by  word, 
line  by  line,  and  sentence  by  sentence,  until  they  have  filled 
up  the  space  allotted.  The  only  result  of  such  a  practice 
in  composition  is  to  produce  an  incoherent,  shapeless  mon- 
strosity, which  the  writer  has  the  temerity  to  call  a  speech. 

Speeches,  to  be  sure,  may  be  composed  either  as  units  in 
their  entirety,  or  in  installments  comprising  any  one  of  their 
main  divisions  or  their  paragraphs ;  but  almost  never  should 
a  speech  be  composed  in  installments  comprising  less  than  a 
paragraph. 

The  proper  length  of  the  minimum  installment  in  composi- 
tion should  always  be  determined  by  whether  or  not  it  in- 
cludes a  single  thought  completely  developed,  and  by 
whether  or  not  the  writer  can  phrase  it  all  in  words  and  re- 
member it  all  before  committing  it  to  writing. 

Composition  by  Successive  Drafts.  —  Another  great 
mistake  commonly  made  by  even  the  most  experienced 
speakers  is  to  write  only  one  draft  of  a  speech  and  torture  an 
audience  with  all  its  obscurity  and  crudeness  of  expression. 
Great  speeches,  however,  are  seldom  written  in  this  way; 


326  Making  the  Plea 

and  the  sooner  the  beginner  realizes  this  truth,  the  sooner 
will  he  be  able  to  avoid  the  disappointments  of  failure  in 
speech-making.  If  a  speech  is  to  be  a  real  triumph,  it  is 
often  written,  not  only  with  a  first  draft,  but  with  a  second, 
and  third,  and  sometimes  even  with  many  more. 

In  the  first  draft  of  a  speech,  a  writer  should  compose  at 
white  heat  with  all  the  rapidity  that  he  can  muster;  caring 
nothing  for  polish  and  precision,  but  only  to  get  his  thoughts 
on  paper  in  the  order  in  which  they  naturally  arise. 

In  the  second  draft,  then,  the  writer  may  proceed  leisurely, 
and  with  great  deliberation  revise  each  statement  to  make 
it  clear,  fluent,  and  forceful. 

If  a  third  draft  is  necessary,  the  writer  should  not  hesi- 
tate a  moment  to  undertake  the  work  of  composing  it ;  and 
this  process  of  revision  through  successive  drafts  should 
never  cease  until  the  finished  speech  not  only  reads  well, 
but  speaks  well.  This  is  the  only  method  of  composition 
by  which  a  speaker  may  be  sure  that  his  address  is  worthy 
of  himself  and  worthy  of  the  occasion  that  calls  it  forth. 

(B)  Composition  of  the  Extempore  Speech 

Composition  of  an  Extempore  Speech.  —  The  method  to 
be  followed  in  composing  an  extempore  speech  resembles 
very  closely  the  method  for  a  written  speech;  and  yet  it 
involves  certain  characteristic  differences  to  which  attention 
should  be  called.  The  extempore  speech,  of  course,  is  im- 
possible, unless  it  is  built  from  a  clear  mental  or  written 
outline  prepared  in  advance.  In  the  process  of  composi- 
tion, the  main  points  in  this  outline  will  be  used  to  provide 
the  leading  ideas  for  all  the  main  divisions  of  the  speech  and 
especially  for  its  paragraphs. 

To  this  extent,  the  composition  of  an  extempore  speech  re- 
sembles that  of  a  written  speech ;  but,  from  this  point  in  the 


Speech-Composition  327 

method  to  be  followed,  certain  characteristic  differences 
should  be  noted.  In  the  composition  of  an  extempore 
speech,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  outline  should  be 
memorized,  and,  in  most  cases,  that  it  should  be  memorized 
by  visualization;  that  is,  by  a  process  that  enables  the  speaker 
to  see  it  clearly  in  his  mind  constantly  before  him. 

The  next  difference  is,  that,  instead  of  making  written 
drafts  of  the  successive  parts  of  the  speech,  the  speaker  must 
take  each  main  topic  in  his  outline  and  say  over  and  over 
to  himself  the  thoughts  by  which  it  is  developed,  until 
gradually  he  falls  into  certain  fixed  expressions  that  convey 
his  meaning  best. 

The  third  and  last  main  difference  is  that  the  speaker 
must  fix  in  his  mind  the  exact  transitions1  that  he  will  use 
in  passing  from  each  thought  to  the  one  that  follows.  These 
little,  unobtrusive  words,  phrases,  clauses,  and  sentences, 
that  mean  so  much  for  ease  and  clearness  of  expression,  pass 
almost  unnoticed  in  the  work  of  written  composition ;  but, 
in  the  work  of  extempore  composition,  they  should  assume 
equal  importance  with  the  most  weighty  thoughts  to  be  pre- 
sented; for,  unless  each  of  these  transitions  is  anticipated, 
the  speaker  may  be  brought  to  a  dead  halt  and  be  at  an  utter 
loss  to  see  how  it  is  possible  to  make  the  jump  from  one  main 
thought  to  another. 

(C)    Composition  of  the  Rebuttal  Speech 

Composition  of  a  Rebuttal  Speech.  —  The  rebuttal  speech 
should  always  assume  the  form  of  an  extempore  speech; 
and  all  that  has  been  said,  therefore,  about  the  composition 
of  an  extempore  speech  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  com- 
position of  a  rebuttal  speech.     In  addition  to  these  sugges- 

1  See  pages  256-258. 


328  Making  the  Plea 

tions,  however,  certain  other  suggestions  should  be  made 
that  apply  particularly  to  the  composition  of  rebuttals. 

The  main  object  of  a  rebuttal  speech  is  to  meet  and  over- 
throw all  the  proof  advanced  by  one's  opponents.  The  prep- 
aration for  such  a  speech  requires,  therefore,  that  the  de- 
bater shall  anticipate,  so  far  as  possible,  every  point  that  an 
opponent  could  make  against  him,  whether  or  not  the  point 
is  relevant,  irrelevant,  admitted,  or  waived. 

His  next  step,  then,  should  be  to  group  these  points  under 
topic  headings  that  suggest  the  bearing  of  each  point  on  the 
controversy.  One  convenient  heading  might  be  Interpre- 
tation of  the  Question,  and  the  other  headings  would  always 
correspond  to  the  established  main  issues. 

With  the  points  thus  grouped,  the  debater  should  then 
transfer  them  to  separate  cards  of  convenient  size  for  han- 
dling ;  and,  under  each  point,  indicate  the  answer  to  be  given. 

An  extremely  important  suggestion  in  this  connection  is 
that  every  argument  in  rebuttal  must  be  concise  and  crush- 
ing, or  it  is  worthless.  The  debater,  then,  should  seek  to 
overthrow  each  point  in  opposing  proof  by  a  single,  striking 
sentence,  whenever  this  is  possible. 

When  a  complete  set  of  rebuttal  cards  has  been  made  out, 
then  the  debater  should  shuffle  the  pack;  draw  at  random 
from  it  various  combinations  that  may  represent  different 
opposing  cases;  and  train  himself  to  speak  on  the  points 
that  he  has  drawn,  by  arranging  them  in  logical  sequence 
and  going  over  his  replies  again  and  again  orally ,  until  he  can 
speak  fluently  on  any  combination. 

If,  then,  the  debater  will  have  in  mind  some  definite  Con- 
clusion for  his  rebuttal  that  will  summarize  his  own  case, 
and,  if  he  arranges  this  Conclusion  with  an  appropriate 
transitional  opening,  he  need  never  have  any  fear  for  his 
success  in  composing  a  satisfactory  rebuttal. 


Speech-Composition  329 

II.  Composition  of  More  Important  Divisions 
of  the  Speech 

Problem  of  Planning  the  More  Important  Divisions  of  the 
Speech.  —  The  first  general  problem  of  speech-composition 
is  connected  with  methods  to  be  followed  in  the  actual  work 
of  composition ;  but  the  second  general  problem  is  connected 
with  the  plan  to  be  adopted  in  composing  the  more  important 
divisions  of  the  speech. 

From  the  standpoint  of  composition,  the  Introduction 
and  the  Conclusion  of  a  speech  are  its  most  important  di- 
visions; for,  when  the  student  of  debate  has  a  full  brief 
before  him,  when  he  understands  all  the  different  principles 
of  conviction  and  persuasion,  and  when  he  has  composed 
a  suitable  Introduction  for  his  speech,  then  the  Discussion 
will  take  care  of  itself;  but  the  Introduction  and  the  Con- 
clusion will  always  raise  very  many  difficult  and  practical 
problems.  The  problems  to  be  considered,  therefore,  in 
connection  with  planning  the  more  important  divisions  of 
the  speech  will  be  those  that  pertain  only  to  the  Introduc- 
tion and  to  the  Conclusion. 

(A)    Composition  of  the  Introduction 

Problems  in  Planning  an  Introduction. — The  two  prob- 
lems that  demand  most  attention  in  planning  an  Intro- 
duction are :  First,  to  fix  proper  limits  for  the  Introduction ; 
and  second,  to  choose  that  type  of  Introduction  that  will 
best  serve  the  purpose  of  the  speaker. 

Problem  of  Fixing  Proper  Limits  for  the  Introduction.  — 

The  problem  of  fixing  proper  limits  for  the  Introduction  is 
always  important  in  speech-composition;  because  every 
speaker,  no  matter  how  experienced,  has  a  tendency,  either 
to  jump  into  his  subject  without  any  Introduction,  or  to 


330  Making  the  Plea 

prolong  his  Introduction  until  it  has  robbed  him  of  much 
valuable  time  that  should  be  spent  on  his  Discussion. 

In  order  to  avoid  one  extreme  or  the  other  in  planning  an 
Introduction,  the  speaker  should,  therefore,  fix  arbitrary 
limits  by  which  he  will  be  bound  in  the  work  of  composition. 
This  he  may  do  by  assigning  not  more  than  one  third  of  his 
speech  to  the  Introduction ;  at  least  one  half  to  the  Discus- 
sion ;  and  not  more  than  one  sixth  to  the  Conclusion.  To 
measure  in  words  the  extent  of  each  one  of  these  divisions, 
the  speaker,  then,  merely  has  to  reckon  on  the  standard 
time  of  effective  speaking,  which  allows  one  hundred  twenty 
words  to  the  minute.  By  such  a  reckoning,  a  twelve-min- 
ute speech  would  be  divided  into  an  Introduction  of  four 
minutes,  with  four  hundred  eighty  words ;  a  Discussion  of 
six  minutes,  with  seven  hundred  twenty  words;  and  a 
Conclusion  of  two  minutes,  with  two  hundred  forty  words. 

Problem   of  Choosing  the  Type  of  Introduction.  —  The 

problem  of  choosing  the  type  of  Introduction  that  will  best 
serve  the  purpose  of  the  speaker  demands :  First,  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  various  types  from  which  a  choice  may  be 
made;  and  second,  a  knowledge  of  the  audience  and  the 
peculiar  circumstances  attending  the  discussion. 

General  Types  of  Introduction.  —  The  general  types  of 
Introduction  from  which  a  choice  may  be  made  are : 

1.  The  Expository  Introduction ; 

2.  The  Personal  Introduction ;  and 

3.  The  Transitional  Introduction. 

The  Expository  Introduction 

The  Expository  Introduction.  —  In  the  opening  speeches 
for  both  sides  in  a  debate,  an  expository  Introduction  should 
always  be  used. 


Speech-Composition  33 1 

This  type  of  Introduction  is  one  that  sets  forth  the  main 
points  in  controversy  with  preliminary  statements  that  make 
plain  their  importance  and  the  reasons  for  their  selection. 

An  expository  Introduction  may  include  some  or  all  of 
the  following  parts : 

1.  A  Statement  of  the  Importance  of  the  Case ; 

2.  A  Narration  of  Facts  Giving  Rise  to  the  Controversy ; 

3.  A  Statement  of  the  Proposition ; 

4.  A  Definition  of  Terms ; 

5.  The  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant,  Admitted,  and  Waived 

Matter;  and 

6.  A  Partition. 

In  some  cases,  and  especially  in  the  opening  speech  for 
the  Negative,  some  of  these  parts  may  be  omitted,  but  gen- 
erally in  the  opening  speech  for  the  Affirmative  most  of  these 
parts  will  be  included. 

Specimen  Introductions  that  illustrate  this  type  of  In- 
troduction are  given  below.  The  following  Introduction, 
taken  from  William  Wirt's  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  repre- 
sents the  briefest  possible  type  of  expository  Introduction 
including  only  a  partition  : 

"  May  it  please  your  Honors  :  —  On  the  part  of  the  appel- 
lant, I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  New  York  are  unconstitutional  and  void :  First, 
because  they  are  in  conflict  with  powers  exclusively  vested 
in  Congress,  which  powers  Congress  has  fully  exercised  by 
laws  now  subsisting  and  in  full  force;  and  second,  be- 
cause, if  the  powers  be  concurrent,  then  the  legislation  of 
the  State  is  in  conflict  with  that  of  Congress,  and  is,  there- 
fore, void."  l 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  49, 


332  Making  the  Plea 

An  Introduction  like  that  given  by  William  Wirt  in  this 
speech  should  seldom  be  employed  in  debate  unless  the  audi- 
ence is  already  familiar  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  unless 
the  audience  is  also  so  highly  intellectual  that  it  requires 
no  emotional  appeal  to  stir  its  interest. 

A  much  more  common  type  of  expository  Introduction, 
therefore,  is  like  the  following  taken  from  Webster's  speech 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of 
Ogden  vs.  Saunders: 

[Importance  of  the  Case]  "May  it  please  the  Court: 
— The  question  arising  in  this  case  is  not  more  important, 
nor  so  important  even,  in  its  bearing  on  individual  cases  of 
private  right,  as  in  its  character  of  a  public  political  quesr 
tion.  The  Constitution  was  intended  to  accomplish  a  great 
political  object.  Its  design  was  not  so  much  to  prevent  in- 
justice or  injury  in  one  case,  or  in  successive  single  cases,  as 
it  was  to  make  general  salutary  provisions,  which,  in  their 
operation,  should  give  security  to  all  contracts,  stability  to 
credit,  uniformity  among  all  the  States  in  those  things  which 
materially  concern  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  country, 
and  their  own  credit,  trade,  and  intercourse  with  ^ach 
other. 

[The  Proposition]  "  The  real  question  is,  therefore,  a 
much  broader  one  than  has  been  argued.  It  is  this: 
Whether  the  Constitution  has  not,  for  general  political  pur- 
poses, ordained  that  bankrupt  laws  should  be  established 
only  by  national  authority  ?  We  contend  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  Constitution;  an  intention,  as  we  think, 
plainly  manifested  in  several  of  its  provisions. 

[  Narration  of  Facts  ]  "  The  act  of  New  York,  under 
which  this  question  arises,  provides  that  a  debtor  may  be 
discharged  from  all  his  debts,  upon  assigning  his  property 


Speech-Composition  333 

to  trustees  for  the  use  of  his  creditors.  When  applied  to  the 
discharge  of  debts  contracted  before  the  date  of  the  law,  this 
court  has  decided  that  the  act  is  invalid.  The  act  itself 
makes  no  distinction  between  past  and  future  debts,  but 
provides  for  the  discharge  of  both  in  the  same  manner.  In 
the  case,  then,  of  a  debt  already  existing,  it  is  admitted  that 
the  act  does  impair  the  obligation  of  contracts. 

[Definition  of  Terms]  "  We  wish  the  full  extent  of  this 
decision  to  be  well  considered.  It  is  not  merely  that  the 
legislature  of  the  State  cannot  interfere  by  law,  in  the  par- 
ticular case  of  A  or  B,  to  injure  or  impair  rights  which  have 
become  vested  under  contracts;  but  it  is,  that  they  have 
no  power  by  general  law  to  regulate  the  manner  in  which  all 
debtors  may  be  discharged  from  subsisting  contracts;  in 
other  words,  they  cannot  pass  general  bankrupt  laws  to  be 
applied  in  praesenti. 

[Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  and  Admitted  Matter] 
"  Now,  it  is  not  contended  that  such  laws  are  unjust,  and 
ought  not  to  be  passed  by  any  legislature.  It  is  not  said  that 
they  are  unwise  or  impolitic.  On  the  contrary,  we  know  the 
general  practice  to  be,  that,  when  bankrupt  laws  are  estab- 
lished, they  make  no  distinction  between  present  and  future 
debts.  While  all  agree  that  special  acts,  made  for  individual 
cases,  are  unjust,  all  admit  that  a  general  law,  made  for  all 
cases,  may  be  both  just  and  politic. 

[  Partition  ]  "  The  question,  then,  which  meets  us  on 
the  threshold,  is  this :  If  the  Constitution  meant  to  leave 
the  States  the  power  of  establishing  systems  of  bankruptcy 
to  act  upon  future  debts,  what  great  or  important  object  of 
a  political  nature  is  answered  by  denying  the  power  of  mak- 
ing such  systems  applicable  to  existing  debts?  "  1 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  69-70. 


334  Making  the  Plea 

The  expository  Introduction  given  by  Webster  in  the 
instance  quoted  above  was  intended  for  a  highly  intellectual 
audience;  and,  hence,  there  is  in  it  almost  no  element  of 
persuasion.  To  demonstrate,  however,  that  an  expository 
Introduction  may  touch  the  feelings,  the  following  specimen 
is  given  from  a  speech  delivered  to  a  jury  by  David  Paul 
Brown  in  defense  of  Alexander  William  Holmes  on  a  charge 
of  manslaughter  for  having  thrown  overboard  certain  pas- 
sengers from  a  life-boat  in  order  to  save  others : 

[Importance  of  the  Case]  "With  deference  to  the 
Court :  —  How  wonderful  and  mysterious,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  are  the  vicissitudes  of  human  life.  How  frail  and  pre- 
carious are  our  best  holds  upon  human  happiness.  Man,  the 
boasted  lord  of  creation,  is  the  sport  of  every  wind  that  blows, 
of  every  wave  that  flows.  He  appears  like  the  grass  of 
the  field,  flourishes,  and  is  cut  down,  and  withers  ere  the 
setting  sun;  like  the  dews  of  the  morning  he  sparkles 
for  a  brief  moment  and  is  exhaled.  There  is  nothing 
earthly  certain  but  uncertainty;  there  is  nothing  true  but 
Heaven. 

[  Narration  of  Facts  ]  "  What  a  salutary  practical 
commentary  is  supplied  by  the  present  intensely  interesting 
occasion  upon  the  truth  of  this  melancholy  doctrine.  On 
the  thirteenth  day  of  March,  in  the  last  year,  a  staunch  and 
gallant  ship,  with  a  competent  commander  and  a  noble 
crew,  with  sixty-five  passengers  on  board,  sailed  from  the 
port  of  Liverpool,  destined  for  that  of  Philadelphia;  a 
destination,  alas  !  which  was  never  accomplished. 

"  For  more  than  a  month,  notwithstanding,  she  encoun- 
tered storms  and  tempests,  she  outrode  them  all ;  and  like 
a  thing  of  life  held  on  her  way  rejoicing.  On  the  19th  of 
the  succeeding  month,  she  arrived  in  fairer  climes  and  enjoyed 


Speech-Composition  335 

more  propitious  gales;  but  even  then,  when  every  heart 
throbbed  with  the  anticipated  joy  of  a  speedy  arrival,  the 
angel  of  destruction  spread  his  broad  black  wings  above 
her,  and  while  traversing  the  ocean  with  all  sails  set,  at  the 
rate  of  ten  knots  an  hour,  she  came  into  collision  with  an 
island  of  ice,  and  in  a  moment  her  pride  was  prostrate,  and 
the  doomed  ship  was  reduced  to  an  actually  sinking  condi- 
tion, affording  scarcely  time  for  the  unhappy  inmates,  in 
the  moment  of  their  extremest  need,  to  cry  God  bless  us. 
The  ocean,  her  favored  element,  of  which  for  years  she  had 
been  the  pride,  became  her  sepulchre;  and  the  winds  that 
had  borne  her  upon  many  a  prosperous  voyage,  sung  her 
last  sad,  only  requiem.  Here  is  a  scene  strikingly  pre- 
sented, in  which  the  theories  of  philosophy  are  reduced  at 
once  to  a  frightful  reality. 

"  But  there  is  still  another  picture  to  which  I  would  in- 
vite, and  upon  which  I  would  fasten  your  attention.  On 
that  dreadful  night,  the  crew  and  half  the  passengers  having 
taken  to  the  boats,  the  agonizing  voice  of  a  mother  is  heard 
even  beyond  the  tumult  and  the  clamor,  calling  for  the 
preservation  of  her  daughter,  who  in  the  consternation  of 
the  moment  had  been  forgotten,  and  remained  on  board  the 
fated  ship.  In  an  instant,  you  may  see  a  gallant,  athletic, 
and  powerful  sailor,  passing  hand  over  hand,  by  dint  of  a 
slender  rope,  until  he  regains  the  vessel.  And  you  may 
further  behold  him  upon  the  quarter  deck,  in  the  depth  of 
the  night,  surrounded  by  the  wild  and  wasteful  ocean,  with 
one  arm  entwined  around  a  sickly  and  half  naked  girl,  while, 
with  the  other,  he  bravely  swings  himself  and  his  almost 
lifeless  burden,  by  means  of  the  '  boat  tackle  falls/  from  the 
stern  of  the  sinking  ship  into  the  boat  below,  and  at  once 
restores  the  child  to  the  open  arms  and  yearning  heart  of 
the  mother. 


336  Making  the  Plea 

[The  Proposition]  "  Yet  to-day,  I  say  it  to  the  dis- 
grace of  the  law,  after  months  of  solitary  imprisonment,  you 
here  see  that  self-same  heroic  sailor  arraigned  upon  the  odi- 
ous charge  of  having  voluntarily  and  wantonly  deprived  a 
fellow-creature  of  his  life ;  and  that,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is 
the  charge  that  /  am  to  argue  and  you  are  to  determine.  I 
say  this  is  what  you  are  to  determine."  * 

The  Personal  Introduction 

The  Personal  Introduction.  —  Whenever  a  debater  faces 
a  strange  audience,  an  indifferent  audience,  a  prejudiced 
audience,  or  an  openly  hostile  audience,  he  should  use  in  his 
opening  speech  what  is  known  as  a  personal  Introduction. 

This  type  of  Introduction  is  generally  employed  as  a  pref- 
ace to  the  more  impersonal,  expository  Introduction,  and 
is  one  that  dwells  on  the  relation  of  the  speakers  and  the 
audience  to  one  another  and  to  the  subject. 

Many  different  varieties  of  personal  Introduction  may 
be  found  in  the  speeches  of  great  orators ;  but  those  which 
are,  perhaps,  most  common  are  : 

1.  Appeal  to  Sympathy  for  the  Speaker. 

2.  Appeal  for  Confidence  in  the  Speaker. 

3.  Appeal  to  Prejudice  against  Opponents. 

4.  Appeal  to  Vanity  of  Audience. 

5.  Appeal  to  Selfish  Interests  of  Audience. 

6.  Appeal  to  Duty  and  Responsibility  of  Audience. 

7.  Appeal  to  Outraged  Feelings  of  Audience. 

8.  Appeal  to  Sense  of  Fair  Play. 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Sympathy  for 
the  Speaker.  —  A  very  common  and  effective  type  of  per- 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  128-129. 


Speech-Composition  337 

sonal  Introduction  is  that  in  which  an  appeal  is  made  to 
sympathy  for  the  speaker,  on  the  ground  that  he  is  laboring 
under  some  very  great  handicap,  such  as  ill-health,  feeble- 
ness, exhaustion,  grief,  or  persecution. 

This  type  of  personal  introduction  was  used  with  striking 
effect  by  the  Earl  of  Chatham  in  advocating  the  repeal  of 
the  Stamp  Act  in  1766  when  he  said : 

"It  is  a  long  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  since  I  have  attended  in 
Parliament.  When  the  resolution  was  taken  in  this  House 
to  tax  America,  I  was  ill  in  bed.  If  I  could  have  endured  to 
be  carried  in  my  bed  —  so  great  was  the  agitation  of  my 
mind  for  the  consequences  —  I  would  have  solicited  some 
kind  hand  to  have  laid  me  down  on  this  floor,  to  have  borne 
my  testimony  against  it.  .  .  . 

"  I  hope  a  day  may  soon  be  appointed  to  consider  the 
state  of  the  nation  with  respect  to  America.  ...  In  the 
meantime,  as  I  cannot  depend  upon  my  health  for  any 
future  day  (such  is  the  nature  of  my  infirmities)  I  will  beg 
to  say  a  few  words  at  present,  leaving  the  justice,  the  equity, 
the  policy,  the  expediency  of  the  act  to  another  time."  ! 

Another  appeal  similar  to  this,  but  chancing  to  come  in  a 
Conclusion,  is  found  in  the  closing  words  of  the  famous 
speech  by  Fisher  Ames  on  ratifying  the  Jay  Treaty. 

"  I  rose  to  speak  under  impressions  that  I  would  have  re- 
sisted if  I  could.  Those  who  see  me  will  believe  that  the 
reduced  state  of  my  health  has  unfitted  me  almost  equally 
for  much  exertion  of  body  or  mind.  Unprepared  for  debate, 
by  careful  reflection  in  my  retirement  or  by  long  attention 
here,  I  thought  the  resolution  I  had  taken  to  sit  silent  was 
imposed  by  necessity,  and  would  cost  me  no  effort  to  main- 

1  Bryan,  World's  Famous  Orations,  III,  pp.  197-198, 


338  Making  the  Plea 

tain.  With  a  mind  thus  vacant  of  ideas  and  sinking,  as  I 
really  am,  under  a  sense  of  weakness,  I  imagined  the  very 
desire  of  speaking  was  extinguished  by  the  persuasion  that 
I  had  nothing  to  say.  Yet,  when  I  come  to  the  moment  of 
deciding  the  vote,  I  start  back  with  dread  from  the  edge  of 
the  pit  into  which  we  are  plunging.  In  my  view,  even  the 
minutes  I  have  spent  in  expostulation  have  their  value,  be- 
cause they  protract  the  crisis  and  the  short  period  in  which 
alone  we  may  resolve  to  escape  it. 

"  I  have  thus  been  led  by  my  feelings  to  speak  more  at 
length  than  I  intended.  Yet  I  have,  perhaps,  as  little  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  event  as  any  one  here.  There  is,  I  be- 
lieve, no  member  who  will  not  think  his  chance  to  be  a  wit- 
ness of  the  consequences  greater  than  mine.  If,  however, 
the  vote  shall  pass  to  reject,  and  a  spirit  should  rise,  as  it 
will,  with  the  public  disorders,  to  make  confusion  worse  con- 
founded, even  I,  slender  and  almost  broken  as  my  hold  upon 
life  is,  may  outlive  the  government  and  Constitution  of  my 
country.' ' 1 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  for  Confidence  in 
the  Speaker.  —  Another  common  type  of  personal  Intro- 
duction is  that  in  which  an  appeal  is  made  for  confidence  in 
the  speaker.  Very  often  this  type  of  Introduction  assumes 
the  form  of  laying  before  the  audience  a  statement  of  the 
speaker's  special  preparation  to  discuss  the  subject,  as  in  the 
following  instance,  taken  from  Burke's  speech  on  Concilia- 
tion with  the  Colonies.     In  this  speech  Burke  said  : 

"  Surely  it  is  an  awful  subject,  or  there  is  none  on  this  side 
of  the  grave.  When  I  first  had  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  this 
House,  the  affairs  of  that  continent  pressed  themselves  upon 

1  Bryan,  World's  Famous  Orations,  VIII,  pp.  164-165. 


Speech-Composition  339 

us  as  the  most  important  and  most  delicate  object  of  Par- 
liamentary attention.  My  little  share  in  this  great  delib- 
eration oppressed  me.  I  found  myself  a  partaker  in  a  very 
high  trust :  and,  having  no  sort  of  reason  to  rely  on  the 
strength  of  my  natural  abilities  for  the  proper  execution  of 
that  trust,  I  was  obliged  to  take  more  than  common  pains 
to  instruct  myself  in  everything  which  relates  to  our  col- 


Speakers  are  frequently,  not  only  under  the  necessity  of 
showing  their  qualifications  to  discuss  a  particular  subject, 
but  they  are  also  obliged  in  many  cases  to  show  that  they  have 
no  desire  extending  beyond  the  mere  performance  of  jus- 
tice. An  illustration  of  an  appeal  for  confidence  based  on 
such  a  statement  is  found  in  the  following  quotation  taken 
from  the  Introduction  of  the  speech  by  Seargeant  S.  Prentiss 
in  defense  of  Judge  Wilkinson : 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,"  said  Prentiss,  "  I  ask  for  these 
defendants  no  sympathy,  nor  do  they  wish  it.  I  ask  for 
them  only  justice  —  such  justice  alone  as  you  would  demand 
if  you  occupied  their  situation  and  they  yours.  They  scorn 
to  solicit  that  from  your  pity  which  they  challenge  from  your 
sense  of  right.  I  should  ill  perform  towards  them  the  double 
duty  which  I  have  assumed,  both  of  friend  and  advocate, 
did  I  treat  their  participation  in  this  unfortunate  trans- 
action otherwise  than  candidly  and  frankly ;  did  I  attempt 
to  avoid  responsibility  by  exciting  commiseration.  I  know 
that  sooner  than  permit  deception  and  concealment  in  re- 
lation to  their  conduct,  they  would  bare  their  necks  to  the 
loathsome  fingers  of  the  hangman ;  for  to  them  the  infamous 
cord  has  less  of  terror  than  falsehood  and  self-degradation."  2 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  2. 

2  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  93. 


340  Making  the  Plea 

A  third  method  of  appealing  for  confidence  in  the  speaker 
is  for  him  in  his  Introduction  to  repudiate  any  unjust 
charges  or  suspicions  that  have  been  raised  against  his  charac- 
ter. This  method  was  employed  by  Sir  James  Mackintosh 
in  the  opening  sentences  of  his  speech  in  defense  of  Jean 
Peltier. 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,"  said  he,  "  the  time  is  now  come 
for  me  to  address  you  in  behalf  of  the  unfortunate  gentle- 
man who  is  the  defendant  in  this  record. 

"  I  must  begin  with  observing,  that  though  I  know  myself 
too  well  to  ascribe  to  anything  but  to  the  kindness  and  good 
nature  of  my  learned  friend,  the  attorney-general,  the  un- 
merited praises  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  bestow  on  me, 
yet,  I  will  venture  to  say,  he  has  done  me  no  more  than 
justice  in  supposing  that  in  this  place,  and  on  this  occasion, 
where  I  exercise  the  functions  of  an  inferior  minister  of 
justice,  an  inferior  minister,  indeed,  but  a  minister  of  jus- 
tice still,  I  am  incapable  of  lending  myself  to  the  passions  of 
any  client,  and  that  I  will  not  make  the  proceedings  of  this 
court  subservient  to  any  political  purpose. 

"  Whatever  is  respected  by  the  laws  and  government  of 
my  country  shall,  in  this  place,  be  respected  by  me.  .  .    " l 

This  method  was  also  employed  by  William  H.  Seward  in 
his  defense  of  William  Freeman  when  he  said  in  his  Intro- 
duction : 

"  In  this  case,  if  the  prisoner  be  guilty  of  murder,  I  do  not 
ask  remission  of  punishment.  If  he  be  guilty,  never  was 
murderer  more  guilty.  .  .  . 

"  For  William  Freeman,  as  a  murderer,  I  have  no  com- 
mission to  speak.     If  he  had  silver  and  gold  accumulated 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  569. 


Speech-Composition  34 1 

with  the  frugality  of  Croesus,  and  should  pour  it  all  at  my 
feet,  I  would  not  stand  an  hour  between  him  and  the 
avenger.  But  for  the  innocent,  it  is  my  right,  my  duty  to 
speak.  If  this  sea  of  blood  was  innocently  shed,  then  it  is 
my  duty  to  stand  beside  him  until  his  steps  lose  their  hold 
upon  the  scaffold."  * 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Prejudice  against 
Opponents.  —  A  third  type  of  personal  Introduction  is  one  in 
which  the  speaker  appeals  to  prejudice  against  his  opponents. 
This  appeal  may  be  either  an  insinuating  one,  or  a  direct 
attack  upon  the  actions,  motives,  or  character  of  the  op- 
ponent. 

Sir  James  Mackintosh  used  this  method  .by  insinuation 
when  he  said  in  the  Introduction  of  his  speech  in  behalf  of 
Jean  Peltier : 

"  I  cannot  but  feel,  gentlemen,  how  much  I  stand  in  need 
of  your  favorable  attention  and  indulgence.  The  charge 
which  I  have  to  defend  is  surrounded  with  the  most  invidious 
topics  of  discussion ;  but,  they  are  not  of  my  seeking.  The 
case  and  the  topics  which  are  inseparable  from  it  are  brought 
here  by  the  prosecutor.  Here  I  find  them,  and  here  it  is  my 
duty  to  deal  with  them,  as  the  interests  of  Mr.  Peltier  seem 
to  me  to  require 

"  You  will  pardon  me  for  having  said  so  much  when  you 
consider  who  the  real  parties  before  you  are.  Gentlemen, 
the  real  prosecutor  is  the  master  of  the  greatest  empire  the 
world  ever  saw.  The  defendant  is  a  defenseless,  proscribed 
exile."  2 

In  the  Introduction  of  the  speech  by  David  Paul  Brown 
defending  Alexander  William  Holmes,  the  advocate  used 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  152. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  569-570. 


342  Making  the  Plea 

this  method  by  direct  attack  upon  the  character  of  his  oppo- 
nent, when  he  said : 

"In  approaching  the  consideration  of  this  case,  which  I 
do  with  pride  and  pleasure  and  confidence,  I  cannot  but  ex- 
press my  regret,  to  adopt  a  military  phrase,  that  I  am  called 
into  conflict,  not  only  with  the  regular  troops  of  the  United 
States,  but  with  her  recently  enlisted  volunteers.  I  am  sorry 
that  my  gallant  friend  who  led  on  the  attack  so  boldly  yes- 
terday, and  who  is  a  legitimate  leader  everywhere,  should 
so  far  have  returned  to  his  first  love  as  to  desert  the  white 
banner  of  innocence  (under  which  he  has  lately  so  success- 
fully fought)  to  engage  once  more  beneath  the  bloody  flag 
of  such  a  prosecution  as  this.  We  should  be  happy  to  abide 
by  every  principle  of  civilized  warfare;  but  in  a  mortal 
controversy,  in  a  death  struggle  like  this,  we  shall  neither 
ask  nor  will  we  receive  any  quarter"  * 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Vanity  of  Audi- 
ence. —  The  fourth  type  of  personal  Introduction  which  is 
very  commonly  employed  is  one  in  which  the  speaker  appeals 
to  the  vanity  of  the  audience.  This  may  be  done  as  bluntly 
as  William  H.  Seward  did  it  in  opening  his  speech  entitled, 
The  Irrepressible  Conflict,  when  he  said  : 

"The  unmistakable  outbreaks  of  zeal  which  occur  all 
around  me,  show  that  you  are  earnest  men  —  and  such  a  man 
am  I.  Let  us  therefore,  at  least  for  a  time,  pass  all  second- 
ary and  collateral  questions,  whether  of  a  personal  or  of  a 
general  nature,  and  consider  the  main  subject  of  the  present 
canvass.  The  Democratic  party  —  or,  to  speak  more  ac- 
curately, the  party  which  wears  that  attractive  name  —  is 
in  possession  of  the  Federal  Government.     The  Republicans 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  130. 


Speech-Composition  343 

propose  to  dislodge  that  party,  and  dismiss  it  from  its  high 
trust. 

"  The  main  subject,  then,  is  whether  the  Democratic 
party  deserves  to  retain  the  confidence  of  the  American 
people.  .  .  ."  * 

An  appeal  to  vanity  may  be  as  bluntly  put  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding instance,  or  it  may  be  as  tactfully  phrased  as  in  the 
following  quotation  from  Webster's  speech  in  the  White 
Murder  Case: 

"I  very  much  regret  that  it  should  have  been  thought 
necessary  to  suggest  to  you  that  I  am  brought  here  to  '  hurry 
you  against  the  law  and  the  evidence.'  I  hope  I  have  too 
much  regard  for  justice,  and  too  much  respect  for  my  own 
character,  to  attempt  either;  and  were  I  to  make  such 
attempt,  I  am  sure  that  in  this  court*  nothing  can  be  carried 
against  the  law,  and  that  gentlemen,  intelligent  and  just  as 
you  are,  are  not,  by  any  power,  to  be  hurried  beyond  the 
evidence."  2 

Another  tafctful  instance  of  the  use  of  this  method  may  be 
found  in  the  following  quotation  taken  from  the  Introduc- 
tion of  Sir  James  Mackintosh  in  the  defense  of  Jean  Peltier : 

"  But  be  that  as  it  may,  gentlemen,  he  now  comes  before 
you  perfectly  satisfied  that  an  English  jury  is  the  most  re- 
freshing prospect  that  the  eye  of  accused  innocence  ever 
met  in  a  human  tribunal;  and  he  feels  with  me  the  most 
fervent  gratitude  to  the  Protector  of  empires  that,  surrounded 
as  we  are  with  the  ruins  of  principalities  and  powers,  we  still 
continue  to  meet  together,  after  the  manner  of  our  fathers, 
to  administer  justice  in  this  her  ancient  sanctuary." 3 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  298. 

2  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  p.  66. 

3  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  572. 


344  Making  the  Plea 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  the  Selfish  In- 
terests of  the  Audience.  —  The  fifth  type  of  personal  In- 
troduction is  one  in  which  the  speaker  appeals  to  the  selfish 
interests  of  the  audience.  An  instance  of  the  use  of  this 
method  is  found  in  the  following  Introduction  to  the  speech 
of  Senator  Beveridge  in  the  debate  on  the  Philippine  ques- 
tion: 

"  Mr.  President,"  he  said,  "  I  address  the  Senate  at  this 
time  because  Senators  and  Members  of  the  House  on  both 
sides  have  asked  that  I  give  Congress  and  the  country  my 
observations  on  the  Philippines  and  the  Far  East,  and  the 
conclusions  which  those  observations  compel;  and  because 
of  hurtful  resolutions  introduced  and  utterances  made  in  the 
Senate,  every  word  of  which  will  cost  and  is  costing  the  lives 
of  American  soldiers. 

"  Mr.  President,  the  times  call  for  candor.  The  Philip- 
pines are  ours  forever,  —  '  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States/  as  the  Constitution  calls  them.  And  just  beyond 
the  Philippines  are  China's  illimitable  markets.  We  will 
not  retreat  from  either.  We  will  not  repudiate  our  duty  in 
the  archipelago.  We  will  not  abandon  our  opportunity  in 
the  Orient.  We  will  not  renounce  our  part  in  the  mission 
of  our  race,  trustee,  under  God,  of  the  civilization  of  the 
world.  And  we  will  move  forward  to  our  work,  not  howling 
our  regrets  like  slaves  whipped  to  their  burdens,  but  with 
gratitude  for  a  task  worthy  of  our  strength,  and  thanks- 
giving to  Almighty  God  that  He  has  marked  us  as  his  chosen 
people,  henceforth  to  lead  in  the  regeneration  of  the 
world. 

"  This  island  empire  is  the  last  land  left  in  all  the  oceans. 
If  it  should  prove  a  mistake  to  abandon  it,  the  blunder  once 
made  is  irretrievable.    If  it  proves  a  mistake  to  hold  it,  the 


Speech-Composition  345 

error  can  be  corrected  when  we  will.     Every  other  progres- 
sive nation  stands  ready  to  help  us. 

"  But  to  hold  it  will  be  no  mistake.  Our  largest  trade 
henceforth  must  be  with  Asia.  The  Pacific  is  our  ocean. 
More  and  more  Europe  will  manufacture  the  most  it  needs, 
secure  from  its  colonies  the  most  it  consumes.  Where  shall 
we  turn  for  consumers  of  our  surplus?  Geography  answers 
the  question.  China  is  our  natural  customer.  She  is  nearer 
to  us  than  to  England,  Germany,  or  Russia,  the  commercial 
powers  of  the  present  and  the  future.  They  have  moved 
nearer  to  China  by  securing  permanent  bases  on  her  borders. 
The  Philippines  give  us  a  base  at  the  door  of  all  the  East."  * 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Duty  and  Re- 
sponsibility of  Audience.  —  The  sixth  type  of  personal  In- 
troduction is  one  in  which  the  speaker  appeals  to  his  audi- 
ence to  do  their  duty.  An  illustration  of  this  type  of 
Introduction  is  found  in  the  opening  words  of  William  M. 
Evarts'  speech  for  the  prosecution  in  the  case  of  the  Savan- 
nah Privateers : 

"  A  trial  in  a  court  of  justice,"  he  said,  "  is  a  trial  of  many 
things  besides  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  It  is  a  trial  of  the 
strength  of  the  laws,  of  the  power  of  the  government,  of  the 
duty  of  the  citizens,  of  the  fidelity  to  conscience  and  the 
intelligence  of  the  jury.  .  .  . 

"  The  controlling  dominion  of  duty  to  the  men  before  you 
in  the  persons  of  the  prisoners,  to  the  whole  community 
around  you,  and  to  the  great  nation  for  which  you  now  dis- 
charge here  a  vital  function  for  its  permanence  and  its  safety ; 
your  duty  to  the  laws  and  the  government  of  your  country ; 
.  .  .  your   duty  to   yourselves  requires   you  to  recognize 

Penney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  301- 
302. 


346  Making  the  Plea 

yourselves  not  only  as  members  of  civil  society  but  as 
children  of  the  'Father  of  an  Infinite  Majesty/  and 
amenable  to  His  last  judgment  for  your  acts.  Can  any  of 
us,  then,  fail  to  feel,  even  more  fully  than  we  can  express, 
that  sympathies,  affections,  passions,  sentiments,  prejudices, 
hopes,  fears,  feelings,  and  responsibilities  of  others  than  our- 
selves are  banished  at  once  and  forever,  as  we  enter  the 
threshold  of  such  an  inquiry  as  this,  and  never  return  to  us 
until  we  have  passed  from  this  sacred  precinct,  and,  with 
our  hands  on  our  breasts  and  our  eyes  on  the  ground,  can 
humbly  hope  that  we  have  done  our  duty,  and  our  whole 
duty."  * 

Another  instance  of  this  type  of  Introduction  is  found  in 
the  opening  words  of  William  H.  Seward's  speech  for  the 
defense  in  the  trial  of  William  Freeman : 

"  May  it  please  the  Court,  —  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  — 
1  Thou  shalt  not  kill/  and  '  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood  by 
man  shall  his  blood  be  shed/  are  laws  found  in  the  code  of 
that  people  who,  although  dispersed  and  distracted,  trace 
their  history  to  the  creation ;  a  history  which  records  that 
murder  was  the  first  of  human  crimes.  .  .  . 

"  '  Thou  shalt  not  kill '  is  a  commandment  addressed,  not 
to  him  alone,  but  to  me,  to  you,  to  the  Court,  and  to  the 
whole  community.  There  are  no  exceptions  from  that  com- 
mandment, at  least  in  civil  life,  save  those  of  self-defense, 
and  capital  punishment  for  crimes  in  the  due  and  just  ad- 
ministration of  the  law.  There  is  not  only  a  question,  then, 
whether  the  prisoner  has  shed  the  blood  of  his  fellow-man, 
but  the  question  whether  we  shall  unlawfully  shed  his  blood. 
I  should  be  guilty  of  murder  if,  in  my  present  relation,  I  saw 


1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  375-376. 


Speech-Composition  347 

the  executioner  waiting  for  an  insane  man  and  failed  to  say, 
or  failed  to  do  in  his  behalf,  all  that  my  ability  allowed. 

"  I  am  arraigned  before  you  for  undue  manifestations  of 
zeal  and  excitement.  My  answer  to  all  such  charges  shall 
be  brief.  When  this  cause  shall  have  been  committed  to 
you,  I  shall  be  happy  indeed,  if  it  shall  appear  that  my  only 
error  has  been,  that  I  have  felt  too  much,  thought  too  in- 
tensely, or  acted  too  faithfully. 

"  If  my  error  would  thus  be  criminal,  how  great  would 
yours  be  if  you  should  render  an  unjust  verdict?  ...  If 
any  prejudice  of  witnesses,  or  the  imagination  of  counsel,  or 
any  ill-timed  jest  shall  at  any  time  have  diverted  your  atten- 
tion ;  or  if  any  prejudgment  which  you  may  have  brought 
into  the  jury-box,  or  any  cowardly  fear  of  popular  opinion 
shall  have  operated  to  cause  you  to  deny  to  the  prisoner  that 
dispassionate  consideration  of  his  case  which  the  laws  of 
God  and  man  exact  of  you,  and  if,  owing  to  such  an  error, 
this  wretched  man  fall  from  the  living,  what  will  be  your 
crime  ?  You  have  violated  the  commandment,  '  Thou  shalt 
not  kill.'  It  is  not  the  form  or  letter  of  the  trial  by  jury 
that  authorizes  you  to  send  your  fellow-man  to  his  dread 
account,  but  it  is  the  spirit  that  sanctifies  that  glorious  in- 
stitution; and  if,  through  pride,  passion,  timidity,  weak- 
ness, or  any  cause,  you  deny  the  prisoner  one  iota  of  all  the 
defense  to  which  he  is  entitled  by  the  law  of  the  land,  you 
yourselves,  whatever  his  guilt  may  be,  will  have  broken  the 
commandment,  '  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.'"  l 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Outraged  Feel- 
ings of  Audience.  —  The  seventh  type  of  personal  Introduc- 
tion is  one  in  which  the  speaker  appeals  to  the  outraged  feel- 
ings of  the  audience.     A  remarkable  example  of  this  type 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  151-153, 


348  Making  the  Plea 

of  Introduction  is  found  in  the  speech  of  Wendell  Phillips 
delivered  in  Faneuil  Hall  before  a  mass-meeting  called  for 
the  purpose  of  discussing  resolutions  on  the  murder  of  an 
Abolitionist  called  Lovejoy  who  was  killed  by  a  mob  at  Alton, 
Illinois.     In  this  speech,  Phillips  said  : 

"Mr.  Chairman:  We  have  met  for  the  freest  discussion 
of  these  resolutions,  and  the  events  which  gave  rise  to  them. 
I  hope  I  shall  be  permitted  to  express  my  surprise  at  the  sen- 
timents of  the  last  speaker,  —  surprise  not  only  at  such  sen- 
timents from  such  a  man,  but  at  the  applause  they  have  re- 
ceived within  these  walls.  A  comparison  has  been  drawn 
between  the  events  of  the  Revolution  and  the  tragedy  at 
Alton.  We  have  heard  the  mob  at  Alton,  the  drunken  mur- 
derers of  Lovejoy,  compared  to  those  patriot  fathers  who 
threw  the  tea  overboard  !  .  .  .  Sir,  when  I  heard  the  gen- 
tleman lay  down  principles  which  place  the  murderers  of 
Alton  side  by  side  with  Otis  and  Hancock,  with  Quincy  and 
Adams,  I  thought  those  pictured  lips  [pointing  to  the  por- 
traits in  the  hall]  would  have  broken  into  voice  to  rebuke 
the  recreant  American,  —  the  slanderer  of  the  dead.  The 
gentleman  said  that  he  should  sink  into  insignificance  if  he 
dared  to  gainsay  the  principles  of  these  resolutions.  Sir, 
for  the  sentiments  he  has  uttered,  on  soil  consecrated  by  the 
prayers  of  Puritans  and  the  blood  of  patriots,  the  earth 
should  have  yawned  and  swallowed  him  up." * 

Personal  Introduction  through  Appeal  to  Sense  of  Fair 
Play.  —  The  eighth  and  last  type  of  personal  Introduction 
is  one  in  which  the  speaker  appeals  to  the  sense  of  fair  play 
in  the  audience.  Such  an  Introduction  as  this  is  seldom  em- 
ployed except  before  riotous  audiences  that  refuse  to  give 
the  speaker  a  hearing. 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  II,  pp.  102-104. 


Speech-Composition  349 

Three  notable  examples  of  the  use  of  this  method  have~ 
occurred  in  the  history  of  American  oratory.  One  instance 
occurred  at  the  Republican  National  Convention  of  I860,1 
when  the  convention  had  voted  down  an  amendment  to  its 
platform  which  would  have  inserted  a  quotation  from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  The  convention,  therefore, 
howled  down  any  speaker  who  attempted  to  talk  on  the 
subject.  One  speaker,  however,  George  William  Curtis, 
rose  in  his  place  and  said,  "  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  convention 
of  free  speech,  and  I  have  been  given  the  floor.  I  have 
only  a  few  words  to  say  to  you,  but  I  shall  gay  them  if  I 
stand  here  until  to-morrow  morning. "  The  uproar  broke 
out  again,  but  finally,  with  the  assistance  of  the  chairman, 
Curtis  was  given  a  hearing,  and  succeeded  in  putting  the 
amendment,  in  slightly  different  form,  into  the  platform. 

A  second  instance  of  the  use  of  this  method  is  one  reported 
by  Curtis  and  taken  from  the  early  history  of  the  anti- 
slavery  movement.2  A  mass-meeting  had  been  called  in 
Faneuil  Hall  to  discuss  slavery  and  a  mob  of  sailors  was 
hired  to  break  it  up.  They  took  possession  of  the  hall, 
danced,  and  shouted,  and  sang,  and  refused  to  hear  the 
speakers.  All  the  most  eloquent  orators  pleaded  with  them 
in  vain,  but  finally  a  man  rose  from  among  them  and  said, 
"  Well,  fellow-citizens,  I  wouldn't  be  quiet  if  I  didn't  want 
to."  The  mob  then  thought  it  had  a  spokesman,  and  it 
applauded  vociferously,  calling  for  more.  The  strange 
speaker  then  said,  "No,  I  certainly  wouldn't  stop,  if  I 
hadn't  a  mind  to ;  but  then,  if  I  were  you,  I  would  have  a 
mind  to !  "  The  crowd  became  silent,  and  then  the  speaker 
said,  "  Not  because  this  is  Faneuil  Hall,  nor  for  the  honor 
of  Massachusetts,  nor  because  you  are  Boston  boys,  but  be- 

1  Shurter,  Rhetoric  of  Oratory,  p.  61. 

2  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  206-207. 


350  Making  the  Plea 

cause  you  are  men,  and  because  honorable  and  generous 
men  always  love  fair  play"  By  these  words  the  mob  was 
conquered  and  the  speaker  got  his  hearing. 

A  third  instance  of  an  appeal  for  fair  play  occurred  when 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  went  to  England  during  the  Civil  War 
to  change  the  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  Northern  cause.  In 
Liverpool,  he  was  greeted  by  a  riotous  meeting  that  drowned 
out  all  he  said  with  cat-calls.  Amid  constant  interrup- 
tions Beecher  finally  made  his  audience  hear,  bit  by  bit,  the 
following  remarks,  and  thus,  in  the  end,  he  secured  a  hear- 
ing: 

"It  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  to  me,  person- 
ally, whether  I  speak  here  to-night  or  not.  But  one  thing 
is  very  certain,  if  you  do  permit  me  to  speak  here  to-night, 
you  will  hear  very  plain  talking.  You  will  not  find  me  to  be 
a  man  that  dared  to  speak  about  Great  Britain  three  thou- 
sand miles  off,  and  then  is  afraid  to  speak  to  Great  Britain 
when  he  stands  on  her  shores.  And  if  I  do  not  mistake  the 
tone  and  temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had  rather  have  a  man 
who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way  than  a  sneak  that  agrees 
with  them  in  an  unmanly  way.  Now,  if  I  can  carry  you 
with  me  by  sound  convictions,  I  shall  be  immensely  glad; 
but  if  I  cannot  carry  you  with  me  by  facts  and  sound  argu- 
ments, I  do  not  wish  you  to  go  with  me  at  all ;  and  all  that 
I  ask  is  simply  fair  play."  l 

The  Transitional  Introduction 

The  Transitional  Introduction.  —  The  first  general  type 
of  Introduction  has  been  called  the  expository  Introduction; 
and  the  second  general  type,  the  personal  Introduction. 
The  third  type  is  the  transitional  Introduction. 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  IV,  pp.  95-96. 


Speech-Composition  35 1 

This  type  of  Introduction  is  one  that  should  be  used  in 
all  speeches  during  a  debate  except  the  first  or  opening 
Affirmative  speech ;  and  should  characterize  particularly  the 
speeches  in  rebuttal.  In  what  are  called  the  main  speeches, 
this  Introduction  may  be  used  both  as  preface  to  the 
personal  Introduction  and  to  the  expository  Introduction ; 
but  in  the  rebuttal  speeches  it  may  be  used  without  either 
a  personal  or  an  expository  Introduction. 

The  transitional  Introduction  is  one  that  may  be  used  for 
any  one  of  three  different  purposes : 

1.  To  Recall  the  Debate  to  a  Consideration  of  the  Real 

Points  at  Issue ; 

2.  To  Overcome  the  Persuasive  Effect  of  a  Preceding 

Speech;  or 

3.  To  Refute  Immediately  the  Arguments  of  an  Oppo- 

nent. 

The  Transitional  Introduction  to  Recall  the  Debate  to 
the  Real  Issues.  —  A  remarkable  instance  of  a  transitional 
Introduction  used  for  the  purpose  of  recalling  the  debate  to 
a  consideration  of  the  real  points  at  issue  may  be  found  in 
Webster's  opening  remarks  in  his  Reply  to  Hayne.  In  this 
Introduction,  Webster  said : 

"  Mr.  President,  —  When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed  for 
many  days  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he 
naturally  avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the 
earliest  glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascer- 
tain how  far  the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true 
course.  Let  us  imitate  this  prudence  and  before  we  float 
farther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate  refer  to  the  point  from 
which  we  departed,  that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjec- 
ture where  we  now  are.     I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  reso- 


352  Making  the  Plea 

lution  before  the  Senate.      [The  secretary  then  read   the 
resolution.] 

"  We  have  thus  heard,  Sir,  what  the  resolution  is  which  is 
actually  before  us  for  consideration ;  and  it  will  readily  occur 
to  every  one  that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  about  which 
something  has  not  been  said  in  the  speech,  running  through 
two  days,  by  which  the  Senate  has  been  entertained  by  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wide 
range  of  our  public  affairs,  whether  past  or  present  — 
everything,  general  or  local,  whether  belonging  to  national 
politics  or  party  politics  —  seems  to  have  attracted  more  or 
less  of  the  honorable  member's  attention,  save  only  the  reso- 
lution before  the  Senate.  He  has  spoken  of  everything  but 
the  public  lands;  they  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that 
subject,  in  all  his  excursions,  he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold 
respect  of  a  passing  glance."  l 

The  Transitional  Introduction  to  Overcome  the  Persua- 
sive Effect  of  a  Preceding  Speech.  —  A  striking  instance  of 
a  transitional  Introduction  used  for  the  purpose  of  over- 
coming the  persuasive  effect  of  a  preceding  speech  occurs  in 
the  speech  of  Senator  Hoar  given  in  reply  to  Senator  Bev- 
eridge  on  the  Philippine  question. 

"  Mr.  President/'  said  Senator  Hoar,  "  I  have  listened, 
delighted,  as  have,  I  suppose,  all  the  members  of  the  Senate, 
to  the  eloquence  of  my  honorable  friend  from  Indiana.  I 
am  glad  to  welcome  to  the  public  service  his  enthusiasm,  his 
patriotism,  his  silver  speech,  and  the  earnestness  and  the 
courage  with  which  he  has  devoted  himself  to  a  discharge  of 
his  duty  to  the  Republic  as  he  conceives  it.  Yet,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, as  I  heard  his  eloquent  description  of  wealth  and  glory 
and  commerce  and  trade,  I  listened  in  vain  for  those  words 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  I,  pp.  248-250. 


Speech-Composition  353 

which  the  American  people  have  been  wont  to  take  upon 
their  lips  in  every  solemn  crisis  of  their  history.  I  heard 
much  calculated  to  excite  the  imagination  of  the  youth  seek- 
ing wealth,  or  the  youth  charmed  by  the  dream  of  empire. 
But  the  words,  Right,  Justice,  Duty,  Freedom,  were  absent, 
my  friend  must  permit  me  to  say,  from  the  eloquent  speech. 
I  could  think,  as  this  brave  young  Republic  of  ours  listened 
to  what  he  had  to  say,  of  but  one  occurrence. 

" '  Then  the  devil  taketh  Him  up  into  an  exceeding  high 
mountain  and  sheweth  Him  all  the  Kingdoms  of  the  world 
and  the  glory  of  them. 

"  '  And  saith  unto  Him,  "  All  these  things  will  I  give  Thee  if 
Thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me." 

"  'Then  saith  Jesus  unto  him, "  Get  thee  hence,  Satan."  '  n  1 

The  Transitional  Introduction  to  Refute  Immediately 
the  Arguments  of  an  Opponent.  —  An  instance  of  the  trans- 
itional Introduction  used  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  imme- 
diately the  argument  of  an  opponent  occurs  in  the  opening  of 
Mr.  Douglas's  rejoinder  to  Lincoln  in  the  debate  that  took 
place  at  Alton. 

In  this  debate,  Lincoln  concluded  by  saying : 

"  I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument  that  will  justify 
unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slave  holder  of  his  right 
to  hold  a  slave  in  a  territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its 
length,  breadth,  and  thickness,  furnish  an  argument  for 
nullifying  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Why,  there  is  not  such 
an  Abolitionist  in  the  nation  as  Douglas,  after  all."  2 

Mr.  Douglas  then  picked  the  words  out  of  Lincoln's  mouth 
to  make  a  transitional  Introduction  as  follows : 


1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  325. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  284-285. 


354  Making  the  Plea 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  has  concluded  his  remarks  by  saying  that 
there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  as  I  am  in  all  America.  If 
he  could  make  the  Abolitionists  of  Illinois  believe  that,  he 
would  not  have  much  show  for  the  Senate.  Let  him  make 
the  Abolitionists  believe  the  truth  of  that  statement,  and 
his  political  back  is  broken. 

"  His  first  criticism  upon  me  is  the  expression  of  his  hope 
that  the  war  of  the  Administration  will  be  prosecuted 
against  me  and  the  Democratic  party  of  this  state  with  vigor. 
He  wants  that  war  prosecuted  with  vigor ;  I  have  no  doubt  of 
it.  His  hopes  of  success  and  the  hopes  of  his  party  de- 
pend solely  upon  it.  They  have  no  chance  of  destroying 
the  Democracy  of  this  state  except  by  the  aid  of  federal  pat- 
ronage. .  .  .  "  l 

(B)    Composition  of  the  Conclusion 

Importance  of  the  Conclusion.  —  The  two  most  important 
divisions  of  a  speech  from  the  standpoint  of  composition  are 
the  Introduction  and  the  Conclusion.  The  Introduction 
is  important,  because  it  creates  interest  in  the  Discussion 
and  makes  plain  the  points  that  the  speaker  intends  to 
prove ;  and  the  Conclusion  is  important,  because  it  demon- 
strates the  fact  that  the  speaker  has  carried  out  the  prom- 
ises made  in  his  Introduction,  and  because  it  then  drives 
home  the  truth  of  his  proposition  by  associating  it  with  mo- 
tives that  lead  to  its  acceptance. 

The  Conclusion,  furthermore,  is  important,  because  it 
involves  the  final  word  in  a  speech,  for  which  the  audience 
patiently  waits  throughout  the  entire  discussion.  This 
final  word  clears  up  the  whole  case,  points  the  path  of  duty, 
and  leaves  with  the  audience  its  most  lasting  and  permanent 
impressions. 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  287. 


Speech-Composition  355 

Problems  in  Planning  the  Conclusion.  —  Because  the 
Conclusion  constitutes  one  of  the  two  most  important  divi- 
sions of  a  speech,  no  pains  should  be  spared  by  the  debater 
to  make  it  effective.  The  general  problems  confronting  a 
debater  in  planning  his  Conclusion  are :  First,  to  reserve 
time  for  the  Conclusion ;  second,  to  observe  the  well-known 
laws  governing  the  Conclusion;  and  third,  to  choose  the 
most  appropriate  type  of  Conclusion. 

Problem  of  Reserving  Time  for  the  Conclusion.  —  The 

problem  of  reserving  time  for  the  Conclusion  is  one  of  the 
most  important  and  difficult  problems  of  speech-composi- 
tion. Because  it  is  so  difficult,  many  speakers,  in  fact,  avoid 
the  task  of  giving  it  consideration,  with  the  result  that  they 
are  forced  to  omit  their  Conclusion  altogether,  or  with  the 
result  that  they  give  it  after  their  time-limit  has  expired 
and  thereby  invite  the  prejudice  and  ill-will  of  the  audience. 

To  avoid  either  one  of  these  unfortunate  situations,  the 
debater  should  plan  his  speech  so  carefully  in  advance  that 
he  knows  he  will  have  plenty  of  time  to  give  an  appropriate 
Conclusion. 

In  a  written  speech,  the  problem  of  reserving  time  for  the 
Conclusion  is  comparatively  simple;  for  it  involves  the 
task  merely  of  keeping  the  Discussion  within  proper  bounds. 
If  the  Discussion  is  found  to  be  trespassing  on  time  that 
should  be  given  to  the  Conclusion,  then  the  speaker  has 
merely  to  leave  out  certain  minor  points  or  to  revise  and 
compress  his  treatment  of  these  points.  Of  these  two 
methods,  the  latter  will  usually  prove  most  satisfactory. 

In  an  extempore  speech,  however,  the  problem  is  much 
more  difficult ;  for  the  debater  is  often  led  by  his  enthusiasm 
to  treat  certain  points  more  elaborately  than  he  intended. 
To  guard  against  prolonging  the  Discussion  too  far  in  an 


356  Making  the  Plea 

extempore  speech,  the  debater  should  either  post  a  friend  in 
the  audience  to  warn  him  of  the  passage  of  time,  or  he  should 
train  himself  most  diligently  to  be  a  judge  of  the  passage  of 
time  himself. 

Problem  of  Observing  Well-Known  Laws  Governing  the 
Conclusion.  —  The  problem  of  observing  well-known  laws 
that  govern  the  Conclusion  demands  of  the  speaker  that  he 
know  first  what  these  laws  are.  Briefly,  these  laws  may  be 
stated  as  follows : 

1.  The  Conclusion  should  be  marked  at  its  beginning  with 

a  very  distinct  transition. 

2.  The  Conclusion  should  always  contain  a  summary  of 

the  proof  and  in  most  cases  an  appeal  also  to  the 
emotions. 

3.  The  Conclusion  must  be  brief. 

4.  The  Conclusion  should  always  be  arranged  in  the  order 

of  climax. 

Transitions  to  Mark  the  Beginning  of  the  Conclusion.  — 

The  purpose  of  a  distinct  transition  to  mark  the  beginning 
of  the  Conclusion  is  to  notify  the  audience  that  the  end  of 
the  speech  is  at  hand  and  to  rouse  them  to  one  more  final 
effort  of  concentrated  attention.  If  such  a  transition  is  not 
made,  the  audience  often  fails  completely  to  grasp  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  speaker's  closing  remarks;  but  if,  on  the 
contrary,  such  a  transition  is  made,  it  almost  never  fails  to 
stimulate  renewed  interest  and  attention. 

Among  the  favorite  transitions  used  by  public  speakers  to 
notify  an  audience  of  the  coming  Conclusion  are  such  ex- 
pressions as :  Let  us  see  now  how  the  case  stands  on  both  sides 
—  To  clear  up  my  ideas  on  this  subject,  I  maintain,  etc.  —  To 
summarize  the  case  for  the  Affirmative,  toe  believe  that  we  have 


Speech-Composition  357 

proved,  etc.  —  J  am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  too  long, 
but  I  have  felt  keenly  my  deep  responsibility  in  this  case  —  / 
shall  detain  you  no  longer  —  I  have  now  performed  my  duty  in 
expressing  to  you  my  opinions  on  this  subject  —  and  —  one 
word  more,  and  I  am  done. 

The  Conclusion  a  Place  for  Summary  and  an  Appeal  to  the 
Emotions.  —  Every  audience  expects  that  a  speaker  in  his 
Conclusion  will  make  his  whole  case  clear  by  gathering  it 
together  into  a  nutshell,  and  also  that  the  speaker  will 
use  every  means  within  his  power  to  make  the  audience 
feel  the  truth  of  his  proposition  and  act  upon  his  sug- 
gestions. An  audience  expects  and  demands  these  things 
of  a  speaker,  and  if  the  speaker  disappoints  his  hearers,  then 
he  is  doomed  to  failure.  The  Conclusion  of  the  speech, 
therefore,  should  always  contain  a  summary  of  the  proof 
and  in  most  cases  an  appeal  also  to  the  emotions. 

Brevity  in  the  Conclusion.  —  When  once  a  speaker  has 
intimated  to  an  audience  that  he  is  approaching  the  end  of 
his  speech,  then  he  should  never  yield  to  the  temptation  to 
prolong  it  endlessly ;  for  nothing  so  exasperates  an  audience 
as  to  be  led  to  expect  that  the  end  is  coming  and  then  to  find 
that  "  the  end  is  not  yet."  The  speaker,  therefore,  should 
always  strive  to  make  his  Conclusion  brief;  and  this  ob- 
ject he  may  attain  by  rigidly  excluding  from  his  Conclusion 
any  point  that  leads  to  further  discussion,  and  by  including 
within  it  only  the  main  points  and  vital  issues  of  his  proof 
with  one  strong  appeal  to  motives  that  will  lead  to  their 
acceptance. 

Climax  in  the  Conclusion.  —  The  Conclusion  represents 
the  climax  of  the  whole  speech.  It  is  that  point  toward 
which  the  speaker  has  been  working  through  all  that  he  has 


358  Making  the  Plea 

said;  and  yet  it  merely  repeats  thoughts  and  sentiments 
already  expressed  or  implied  earlier  in  the  speech.  If  the 
repetition  of  these  thoughts  is  to  be  made  effective,  then, 
of  course,  the  Conclusion  must  express  them  with  the  great- 
est force  and  emphasis.  Each  sentence  in  the  Conclusion 
must  be  stronger  than  the  preceding  sentence  or  it  will  fail 
to  hold  the  interest;  and  the  final  sentence  must  be  the 
strongest  sentence  in  the  whole  speech.  In  other  words, 
the  Conclusion  must  not  only  be  a  climax  for  the  speech,  but 
it  must  also  be  a  climax  in  itself. 

Problem  of  Choosing  an  Appropriate  Type  of  Conclusion. 
—  The  third  problem  to  be  met  in  planning  a  Conclusion  is 
to  choose  the  most  appropriate  type.  The  most  common 
types  employed  in  debate  may  be  spoken  of  as  the  summa- 
rizing Conclusion,  and  the  personal  Conclusion. 

The  summarizing  Conclusion  may  consist  of : 

1.  A  Joint  Review  of  the  Opposing  Cases ; 

2.  A  Simple  Restatement  of  Points  in  One's  Own  Case ;  or 

3.  A  Restatement  of  Points  in  a  Periodic  Sentence. 

The  summarizing  Conclusion  is  used  when  no  problem  of 
personal  prejudice  is  encountered;  and  the  personal  Con- 
clusion is  used  when  the  speaker  must  not  only  establish 
his  proposition,  but  also  make  his  audience  well  disposed 
toward  him  and  his  subject. 

The  personal  Conclusion  is  generally  appended  to  the 
summarizing  Conclusion,  and  resembles  the  various  types  of 
personal  Introduction  that  have  beeen  previously  enumer- 
ated. Whenever  a  personal  Introduction  has  been  used  in 
a  speech,  it  may  usually  be  repeated  almost  verbatim  in  the 
Conclusion. 

Conclusion  by  Joint  Review  of  the  Opposing  Cases.  —  An 
excellent  illustration  of  a  joint  review  of  opposing  cases  may 


Speech-Composition  359 

be  taken  from  the  opening  sentences  of  Burke's  long  Con- 
clusion in  his  speech  on  Conciliation  with  the  Colonies,  when 
he  contrasts  his  own  policy  with  the  plan  of  Lord  North : 

"  Compare  the  two,"  he  said.  "  This  I  offer  to  give  you 
is  plain  and  simple ;  the  other  full  of  perplexed  and  intri- 
cate mazes.  This  is  mild;  that  harsh.  This  is  found  by 
experience  effectual  for  its  purposes;  the  other  is  a  new 
project.  This  is  universal ;  the  other  calculated  for  certain 
colonies  only.  This  is  immediate  in  its  conciliatory  opera- 
tion; the  other  remote,  contingent,  full  of  hazard.  Mine 
is  what  becomes  the  dignity  of  a  ruling. people  —  gratuitous, 
unconditional,  and  not  held  out  as  a  matter  of  bargain  and 
sale.  I  have  done  my  duty  in  proposing  it  to  you.  I  have 
indeed  tired  you  by  a  long  discourse ;  but  this  is  the  misfor- 
tune of  those  to  whose  influence  nothing  will  be  conceded, 
and  who  must  win  every  inch  of  their  ground  by  argument. 
You  have  heard  me  with  goodness.  May  you  decide  with 
wisdom !  "  l 

Conclusion  by  Simple  Restatement  of  Points  in  One's 
Own  Case.  —  An  excellent  illustration  of  a  simple  restate- 
ment of  points  in  one's  own  case  may  be  found  in  the  open- 
ing words  of  Webster's  famous  peroration  in  the  White 
Murder  Case: 

"  Gentlemen,"  said  Webster,  "  I  have  gone  through  with 
the  evidence  in  this  case,  and  have  endeavored  to  state  it 
plainly  and  fairly  before  you.  I  think  there  are  conclusions 
to  be  drawn  from  it,  the  accuracy  of  which  you  cannot  doubt. 
I  think  you  cannot  doubt  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  formed 
for  the  purpose  of  committing  this  murder,  and  who  the 
conspirators  were ;   that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  Crown- 

1  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  68-69. 


360  Making  the  Plea 

inshields  and  the  Knapps  were  the  parties  in  the  conspiracy ; 
that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  knew 
that  the  murder  was  to  be  done  on  the  night  of  the  6th  of 
April ;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  murderers  of  Captain 
White  were  the  suspicious  persons  seen  in  and  about  Brown 
Street  on  that  night ;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  Richard 
Crowninshield  was  the  perpetrator  of  that  crime ;  that  you 
cannot  doubt  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  in  Brown 
Street  on  that  night.  If  there,  then  it  must  be  by  agree- 
ment, to  countenance,  to  aid  the  perpetrator.  And  if  so, 
then  he  is  guilty  as  principal."  x 

Conclusion  by  Restatement  of  Points  in  a  Periodic  Sen- 
tence. —  An  example  of  a  conclusion  by  a  restatement  of 
points  in  a  periodic  sentence  is  found  in  Lord  Chatham's 
conclusion  to  his  first  speech  on  American  Affairs. 

"  My  Lords,"  he  said,  "  to  encourage  and  confirm  that 
innate  inclination  of  this  country,  founded  on  every  princi- 
ple of  affection  as  well  as  consideration  of  interest;  to  re- 
store that  favorable  disposition  into  a  permanent  and  power- 
ful reunion  with  this  country ;  to  revive  the  mutual  strength 
of  the  empire ;  again  to  awe  the  house  of  Bourbon,  instead 
of  meanly  truckling,  as  our  present  calamities  compel  us, 
to  every  insult  of  French  caprice  and  Spanish  punctilio ;  to 
reestablish  our  commerce;  to  reassert  our  rights  and  our 
honor;  to  confirm  our  interests,  and  renew  our  glories  for- 
ever —  a  consummation  most  devoutly  to  be  endeavored ! 
and  which,  I  trust,  may  yet  arise  from  reconciliation  with 
America  —  I  have  the  honor  of  submitting  to  you  the  fol- 
lowing amendment,  which  I  move  to  be  inserted  after  the 
two  first  paragraphs  of  the  Address.  .  .   ."  2 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  p.  127. 

2  Bradley,  Orations  and  Arguments,  p.  85. 


Speech-Composition  361 

Personal  Conclusion  Appended  to  the  Summarizing  Con- 
clusion. —  An  instance  of  a  personal  Conclusion  appended 
to  a  summarizing  Conclusion  may  be  found  in  the  final  ap- 
peal of  Seargeant  S.  Prentiss  in  his  defense  of  Judge  Wilkin- 
son. 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,"  said  Prentiss,  "  I  shall  detain 
you  no  longer.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  matter  of  supererogation 
for  me  to  address  you  at  all,  after  the  lucid  and  powerful 
exposition  of  the  case  which  has  been  given  by  my  respected 
friend,  Col.  Robertson.  It  was  doubly  so  when  it  is  consid- 
ered that  I  am  to  be  succeeded  by  a  gentleman  (Judge 
Rowan)  who,  better,  perhaps  than  any  other  man  living, 
can  give  you  from  his  profound  learning  and  experience,  a 
just  interpretation  of  the  laws  of  your  State ;  and  in  his  own 
person  a  noble  illustration  of  that  proud  and  generous  char- 
acter which  is  a  part  of  the  birthright  of  a  Kentuckian. 

"It  is  true  I  had  hoped,  when  the  evidence  was  closed, 
that  the  commonwealth's  attorney  might  have  found  it  in 
accordance  with  his  duty  and  his  feelings  to  have  entered  at 
once  a  nolle  prosequi.  Could  the  genius  of  *  Old-  Kentucky  ' 
have  spoken,  such  would  have  been  her  mandate.  Blush- 
ing with  shame  at  the  inhospitable  conduct  of  a  portion  of 
her  sons,  she  would  have  hastened  to  make  reparation. 

"  Gentlemen :  —  Let  her  sentiments  be  spoken  by  you. 
Let  your  verdict  take  character  from  the  noble  State  which 
you  in  part  represent.  Without  leaving  your  box,  announce 
to  the  world  that  here  the  defense  of  one's  own  person  is  no 
crime,  and  that  the  protection  of  a  brother's  life  is  the  sub- 
ject of  approbation  rather  than  of  punishment. 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  —  I  return  you  my  most  pro- 
found and  sincere  thanks  for  the  kindness  with  which  you 
have  listened   to   me,   a   stranger,   pleading   the   cause   of 


362  Making  the  Plea 

strangers.  Your  generous  and  indulgent  treatment  I  shall 
ever  remember  with  the  most  grateful  emotions.  In  full  con- 
fidence that  you,  by  your  sense  of  humanity  and  justice,  will 
supply  the  many  defects  in  my  feeble  advocacy,  I  now  re- 
sign into  your  hands  the  fate  of  my  clients.  As  you  shall 
do  unto  them,  so,  under  like  circumstances,  may  it  be  done 
unto  you."  * 

Two  other  examples  of  personal  conclusions  that  have 
never  been  surpassed  for  their  eloquence  in  the  oratory  of 
the  whole  world  may  be  taken  from  the  speeches  of  Webster ; 
one  from  his  speech  in  the  White  Murder  Case;  and  the 
other  from  his  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dart- 
mouth College  Case. 

Webster  concluded  his  appeal  in  the  White  Murder  Case 
by  saying : 

"  Gentlemen,  your  whole  concern  should  be  to  do  your 
duty,  and  leave  consequences  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
You  will  receive  the  law  from  the  court.  Your  verdict,  it  is 
true,  may  endanger  the  prisoner's  life,  but  then  it  is  to  save 
other  lives.  If  the  prisoner's  guilt  has  been  shown  and 
proved  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  you  will  convict  him. 
If  such  reasonable  doubts  of  guilt  still  remain,  you  will  ac- 
quit him.  You  are  the  judges  of  the  whole  case.  You  owe 
a  duty  to  the  public,  as  well  as  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 
You  cannot  presume  to  be  wiser  than  the  law.  Your  duty 
is  a  plain,  straightforward  one.  Doubtless  we  would  all 
judge  him  in  mercy.  Towards  him,  as  an  individual,  the 
law  inculcates  no  hostility ;  •  but  towards  him,  if  proved  to 
be  a  murderer,  the  law,  and  the  oaths  you  have  taken  and 
public  justice,  demand  that  you  do  your  duty. 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  123. 


Speech-Composition  363 

"  With  consciences  satisfied  with  the  discharge  of  duty, 
no  consequences  can  harm  you.  There  is  no  evil  that  we 
cannot  either  face  or  fly  from,  but  the  consciousness  of  duty 
disregarded.  A  sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever.  It  is  omni- 
present, like  the  Deity.  If  we  take  to  ourselves  the  wings 
of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea, 
duty  performed,  or  duty  violated,  is  still  with  us,  for  our 
happiness  or  our  misery.  If  we  say  the  darkness  shall  cover 
us,  in  the  darkness  as  in  the  light  our  obligations  are  yet 
with  us.  We  cannot  escape  their  power,  nor  fly  from  their 
presence.  They  are  with  us  in  this  life,  will  be  with  us  at 
its  close ;  and  in  that  scene  of  inconceivable  solemnity  which 
lies  yet  farther  onward,  we  shall  still  find  ourselves  sur- 
rounded by  the  consciousness  of  duty,  to  pain  us  wherever 
it  has  been  violated,  and  to  console  us  so  far  as  God  may 
have  given  us  grace  to  perform  it."  l 

In  the  Dartmouth  College  Case,  Webster  concluded  with 
the  following  famous  appeal : 

"  This,  sir,  is  my  case.  It  is  the  case  not  merely  of 
that  humble  institution,  it  is  the  case  of  every  college  in  our 
land.  .  .  . 

"  Sir,  you  may  destroy  this  little  institution,  it  is  weak ; 
it  is  in  your  hands !  I  know  it  is  one  of  the  lesser  lights  in 
the  literary  horizon  of  our  country.  You  may  put  it  out. 
But  if  you  do  so,  you  must  carry  through  your  work !  You 
must  extinguish,  one  after  another,  all  those  greater  lights 
of  science  which  for  more  than  a  century  have  thrown  their 
radiance  over  our  land.  It  is,  sir,  as  I  have  said,  a  small 
college.     And  yet  there  are  those  who  love  it." 

Here,  Webster's  feelings  overcame  him ;  his  eyes  filled  with 
tears ;  his  lips  quivered ;  and  his  voice  choked.     Then,  after 
1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  127-128. 


364  Making  the  Plea 

a  moment,  when  he  had  recovered  his  composure,  he  con- 
tinued by  saying : 

"Sir,  I  know  not  how  others  may  feel  [glancing  at  the 
opponents  of  the  college  before  him],  but  for  myself,  when 
I  see.  my  Alma  Mater  surrounded,  like  Caesar  in  the  Senate 
House,  by  those  who  are  reiterating  stab  after  stab,  I  would 
not,  for  this  right  hand,  have  her  turn  to  me,  and  say,  Et  tu 
quoque,  mi  fill  !    And  thou  too,  my  son  t-Hl 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Speech-Composition.  —  There 
is  no  danger  that  a  student  of  debate  will  underrate  the 
importance  of  problems  in  the  composition  of  his  speeches ; 
but  there  is  great  danger  that  he  will  undertake  to  solve 
these  problems  with  no  definite  ideas;  of  the  fundamental 
principles  that  he  must  observe.  He  is  likely,  for  instance, 
to  approach  the  actual  work  of  composition  with  no  definite 
notion  of  how  it  should  be  conducted,  and,  worse  than  that, 
without  any  definite  plans  for  his  Introduction  and  Conclu- 
sion. Such  errors  in  composition  almost  invariably  lead  to 
disappointment  and  failure ;  and,  hence,  the  student  should 
spare  no  pains  to  become  familiar  with  all  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  composition,  and  especially  with  all  the  different 
types  of  Introduction  and  Conclusion  that  he  may  use  to 
serve  his  purpose  best. 

1  Lodge,  Daniel  Webster,  pp.  89-91. 


CHAPTER  IV 

STRATEGY1 

Preliminary  Statement.  —  The  task  of  making  the  plea 
in  a  debate  demands  of  a  speaker,  not  only  that  he  should 
have  a  knowledge  of  all  the  different  principles  of  conviction, 
persuasion,  and  speech-composition ;  but  also  that  he  should 
be  thoroughly  familiar  with  every  art  of  debating  strategy. 
'the  last  main  topic  for  consideration,  therefore,  under  the 
general  subject  of  making  the  plea,  must  be  the  subject  of 
strategy. 

Definition  of  Strategy.  —  Strategy  in  debate,  like  strategy 
in  war,  consists  in  arranging  and  directing  one's  forces  in 
such  a  way  as  to  gain  an  unexpected  advantage  over  an 
adversary  in  respect  to  the  conditions  of  fighting. 

Purpose  of  the  Study  of  Strategy.  —  All  forms  of  strat- 
egy in  debate  are  regarded  by  many  persons  as  being  con- 
temptible and  unworthy  of  the  speakers ;  but,  in  reality,  the 
strategy  of  debate  may  be  as  honorable  as  that  adopted  by 
any  military  commander  in  planning  a  campaign  and  in 
directing  his  forces  on  the  field  of  actual  battle. 

Some  forms  of  strategy  are,  of  course,  contemptible  — 
such  strategy,  for  instance,  as  that  which  deliberately  con- 
ceals the  truth,  or  that  which  takes  an  unfair  advantage  of  an 
opponent  —  and  all  honorable  debaters  will  scorn  a  resort 
to  such  methods  of  controversy,  just  as  all  honorable  military 
commanders  will  scorn  a  resort  to  treacherous  methods  of 
warfare. 


1  For  lesson  assignments  on  Strategy,  see  Appendix  A, 

365 


366  Making  the  Plea 

The  study  of  strategy  in  debate  should  not  be  discouraged, 
therefore,  because  some  forms  of  strategy  are  contemptible ; 
but  should  be  encouraged,  rather,  in  order  that  the  debater 
may  employ  every  honorable  method  of  advancing  a  good 
cause,  and  in  order  that  he  may  be  able  to  block  every  dis- 
honorable method  of  promoting  a  bad  cause. 

Common  Forms  of  Debating  Strategy.  —  The  term  strat- 
egy is,  by  its  origin,  a  strictly  military  term;  and,  hence, 
all  the  different  forms  of  debating  strategy  referred  to  in 
this  treatment  of  the  subject  will  be  given  names  derived 
from  military  usage.  The  most  common  forms  of  strategy 
employed  in  debate  are  : 

1.  Strategy  of  Direct  and  Overwhelming  Assault 

2.  Strategy  of  Taking  over  the  Enemy's  Positions 

3.  Strategy  of  Scattering  the  Enemy's  Forces 

4.  Strategy  of  Retreat 

5.  Strategy  of  Skirmishing 

6.  Strategy  of  Drawing  the  Enemy's  Fire 

7.  Strategy  of  Bottling-Up  the  Enemy 

8.  Strategy  of  Evading  Traps 

9.  Strategy  of  Concealed  Objective 
10.   Strategy  of  Withholding  Reserves 

Strategy  of  Direct  and  Overwhelming  Assault.  —  No 
strategy  in  debate  is  more  effective  than  for  a  speaker  to 
attack  at  once  all  along  the  whole  front,  forcing  his  opponent 
everywhere  to  take  the  defensive,  and  keeping  him  so  busy 
repairing  his  losses  that  he,  in  turn,  has  almost  no  opportunity 
to  launch  an  offensive  of  his  own.  This  form  of  strategy  is 
known  as  that  of  direct  and  overwhelming  assault. 

To  employ  this  kind  of  strategy,  the  speaker  should  waste 
no  time  on  his  Introduction  beyond  what  is  absolutely  neces- 


Strategy  367 

sary  to  state  his  general  position  in  regard  to  the  proposition ; 
he  should  weave  into  his  argument  the  greater  part  of  his 
narration  and  his  definition  of  terms ;  and  he  should  then 
pour  down  upon  his  opponent  such  an  avalanche  of  points, 
that  little  opportunity  is  given  to  record  them,  and  no  oppor- 
tunity is  given  to  prepare  answers  for  them. 

This  type  of  strategy  is  well  illustrated  in  the  following 
speech  taken  from  a  college  debate  on  the  repeal  of  the 
Esch-Cummins  Railroad  Law : * 

"  No  problem  facing  the  nation  to-day  is  more  important 
than  the  railroad  problem;  for  the  railroads  to-day  are 
approaching  a  condition  of  utter  collapse.  Before  the 
World  War,  the  railroads  showed  signs  of  a  break-down, 
because  they  were  caught  in  a  nutcracker  between  the 
demands  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  for  better 
and  better  service  at  lower  and  lower  rates,  and  the  demands 
of  labor  for  higher  and  higher  wages  and  less  and  less  work. 
Government  operation  of  the  roads  during  the  World  War 
tided  them  over  a  period  when  collapse  seemed  to  be  inevi- 
table ;  but  when  the  government  turned  the  roads  back  to 
their  private  owners,  they  were  left,  not  only  in  a  dilapidated 
condition,  but  also  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy.  The  Esch- 
Cummins  Law  attempted  to  remedy  this  situation  so  that 
the  roads  might  recover  their  financial  stability  and,  thereby, 
be  able  to  render  to  the  public  adequate  service  at  reasonable 
rates;  but,  in  this  attempt,  the  Esch-Cummins  Law  has 
proved  to  be  an  utter  failure.  It  has  only  accentuated  and 
perpetuated  the  problem  it  was  intended  to  solve.  We 
of  the  Affirmative,  advocate,  therefore,  its  total  repeal. 

"  Let  us  examine  this  law  for  a  moment  to  see  why  we  think 

1  Opening  Speech  by  Knox  College  Debater  in  Knox-Beloit  Debate 
of  1921. 


368  Making  the  Plea 

it  should  be  repealed.  The  law  contains  provisions  of  two 
fundamentally  different  types.  Some  of  its  provisions  are 
merely  temporary,  and  some  are  intended  to  be  permanent. 
Its  temporary  provisions  have  already  served  their  purpose. 
They  are  now  dead  letters,  because  they  have  passed  into 
history.  They  cannot  be  considered,  therefore,  in  a  dispute 
concerning  the  repeal  of  the  law.  The  permanent  features 
of  the  law  are  the  ones  to  which  we  object;  because  they 
cannot  secure  to  the  public  adequate  service  at  reasonable 
rates.  We  propose,  therefore,  that  these  permanent  pro- 
visions, which  now  constitute  the  Esch-Cummins  Law, 
should  be  repealed. 

"  What  are  these  permanent  provisions  to  which  we  object? 
They  are  the  rate-making  provisions,  the  excess-profits 
provisions,  the  Labor-Board  provisions,  the  supervisory 
provisions,  and  the  consolidation  provisions.  Each  of  these 
provisions  operates  to  destroy  adequate  service  at  reasonable 
rates ;  and,  therefore,  we  advocate  that  all  of  these  provisions, 
that  is,  the  entire  law  as  it  now  exists,  should  be  repealed. 

"  The  rate-making  provisions  of  the  law  operate  to  pre- 
vent adequate  service  at  reasonable  rates ;  for  the  law  pro- 
vides for  a  regional  flat-rate,  with  exceptions  in  cases  of 
obvious  injustice.  Now,  if  the  regional  flat-rate  is  based  on 
average  operating  conditions,  it  will  drive  the  poorer  roads 
into  bankruptcy.  And,  if  it  is  based  on  the  worst  operating 
conditions,  it  will  give  all  the  better  roads  exorbitant  rates 
that  are  unfair  to  the  public.  And,  if  it  provides  for  excep- 
tions, it  will  create  numberless  appeals  for  exception  after 
exception,  until  all  the  rules  of  rate-making  are  thrown  into 
chaos.  A  regional  flat-rate  based  on  operating  costs  will 
lead,  furthermore,  to  inflated  valuations  of  railroad  proper- 
ties, and  to  collusion  with  manufacturers  of  railroad  supplies 
to  boost  the  prices  of  materials,  with  the  result  that  the 


Strategy  369 

public  will  suffer  from  exorbitant  rates.  For  all  these 
reasons,  therefore,  we  believe  that  the  rate-making  pro- 
visions of  this  law  tend  to  prevent  adequate  service  at 
reasonable  rates. 

"  We  believe,  also,  that  the  excess-profits  provisions  of  the 
law  operate  to  prevent  adequate  service  at  reasonable  rates ; 
for  the  law  provides  that  all  profits  above  a  fixed  per  cent 
shall  be  turned  over  to  the  government  to  be  given  as  loans 
to  the  needy  roads.     Now,  such  a  provision,  if  it  works  at 
all,  will  injure,  rather  than  help,  the  poorer  roads ;  for  it  will 
lead  them  to  abandon  all  initiative  with  the  thought  that 
their  neglect  will  be  made  good  by  the  government  loans; 
and,  when  they  have  continued  to  rely  on  this  source  of  funds 
indefinitely,  they  will  become  so  heavily  sunk  in  debt  that 
no  amount  of  initiative  can  extricate  them.     This  provision, 
furthermore,  destroys  initiative  in  the  better  roads;    for 
they  will  have  no  desire  to  earn  money  to  be  lent  to  poorer 
rivals ;   and  they  will  always  consider  the  operation  of  this 
clause  in  the  law  as  amounting  to  confiscation.     Among 
the  better  roads,  therefore,  this  provision  will  result  in  ex- 
travagant expenditures  and  graft,  with  the  effect  that  the 
public  will  continually  suffer  from  exorbitant  rates.     For 
these  reasons,  the  Affirmative  maintains  that  this  provision 
of  the  law  is  in  every  way  detrimental,  and  should  be  repealed. 
"  The  excess-profits  provision,  however,  is  no  more  detri- 
mental than  the  Labor-Board  provision ;   for  this  provision 
establishes  a  Labor  Board  with  power  to  hear  all  disputes 
between  railroad  capital  and  railroad  labor,  with  power  to 
recommend  a  settlement,  but  no  power  to  compel  acceptance 
of   its   decisions.     This   board   consists   of  three   members 
representing   capital,  three   representing   labor,  and  three 
representing  the  public.     Such  a  board  cannot  restore  the 
morale  of  railroad  labor,  because  it  fails  to  give  labor  any 


370  Making  the  Plea 

direct  incentive  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  roads.  It 
continues  the  idea  of  natural  hostility  between  the  two 
opposing  forces.  It,  furthermore,  leads  labor  to  suspect  the 
board  of  partiality  to  capital,  because  the  representatives 
of  the  public  are  likely  to  be  men  of  prominence  who  live 
on  their  investments  and,  therefore,  have  capitalistic  sym- 
pathies. This  board,  moreover,  will  be  utterly  helpless  in 
cases  of  violent  disputes;  because  it  cannot  enforce  its 
decisions  on  either  capital  or  labor.  This  third  important 
provision  of  the  law  cannot  accomplish  its  purpose.  It 
cannot  secure  to  the  public  adequate  service  at  reasonable 
rates ;  and,  therefore,  should  be  repealed. 

"  The  fourth  important  provision  of  the  law  which  strength- 
ens and  extends  the  supervisory  powers  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  is,  also,  detrimental;  for  this  pro- 
vision overwhelms  with  duties  the  already  heavily  taxed 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  It  destroys  all  initia- 
tive of  the  private  owners  in  improving  the  roads,  because 
every  project  of  theirs  must  be  approved  by  men  who,  they 
think,  have  far  less  knowledge  and  sympathy  for  their  needs 
than  they  have  themselves.  And,  finally,  this  provision 
destroys  all  sense  of  responsibility  in  the  management  of  the 
roads,  because  the  managers  can  shift  responsibility  to  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  or  the  Labor  Board ; 
and  each  of  these  bodies  may  then  shift  responsibility  to  the 
other  body  or  back  to  the  private  managers.  This  portion 
of  the  law  is  utterly  bad  like  all  the  rest,  and  should  be 
repealed. 

"  The  fifth  and  last  fundamental  provision  of  the  law  is 
one  providing  for  permissive  consolidation.  Under  this 
provision,  consolidation  and  cooperation  among  the  roads 
are  not  compulsory,  but  merely  optional.  Nothing  could 
be  more  short-sighted  than  such  a  policy;   for  this  policy 


Strategy  371 

leads  to  consolidation  and  cooperation  only  among  the 
better  roads.  The  poorer  roads  are  left  to  struggle  for 
themselves ;  and  they  are  the  very  roads  that  need  assistance 
most.  Consolidation  and  cooperation,  after  this  fashion, 
will  inevitably  lead  to  the  strangulation  of  the  poorer  roads ; 
and  they  have  no  recourse,  except  to  higher  rates,  which 
are  fatal,  and  to  government  loans,  which  are  equally  fatal. 
This  provision  in  the  law,  therefore,  is  one  of  its  most  objec- 
tionable features,  and,  with  all  the  other  provisions,  should 
be  repealed. 

"  The  Affirmative,  therefore,  maintains  that  every  one  of 
the  permanent,  fundamental  provisions  of  the  Esch-Cum- 
mins  Law  should  be  repealed.  The  rate-making  provisions 
should  be  repealed.  The  excess-profits  provisions  should  be 
repealed.  The  Labor-Board  provisions  should  be  repealed. 
The  supervisory  provisions  should  be  repealed.  The  con- 
solidation provisions  should  be  repealed.  And,  therefore, 
the  whole  law,  as  it  now  stands,  should  be  repealed.' ' 

The  first  speaker  for  the  Affirmative  of  a  proposition  ex- 
periences little  difficulty  in  adopting  the  strategy  of  direct 
and  overwhelming  assault,  provided  he  has  a  strong  case  to 
present ;  but  the  following  speakers  for  the  Negative  always 
experience  much  greater  difficulty,  because  they  must  first 
overcome  the  effect  produced  by  the  speaker  who  preceded 
them. 

These  speakers  may  employ  this  strategy,  however,  if,  in 
their  Introduction,  they  will  only  strike  one  quick,  hard 
blow  in  refutation,  and  then  proceed  to  let  loose  a  perfect 
avalanche  of  points  against  the  Affirmative  in  the  form  of 
objections  to  the  proposition. 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  strategy  by  the  Negative 
may  be  taken  from  the  opening  speech  of  Patrick  Henry 


372  Making  the  Plea 

in  the  Virginia  Convention  for  ratifying  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution.1 In  this  speech  Henry  opened  his  attack  with  the 
following  extremely  brief  Introduction : 

"  Mr.  Chairman/  •  he  said,  "  I  wish  I  were  possessed  of 
talents  or  possessed  of  anything  that  might  enable  me  to 
elucidate  this  great  subject.  I  am  not  free  from  suspicion ; 
I  am  apt  to  entertain  doubts.  I  rose  yesterday  to  ask  a 
question  which  arose  in  my  own  mind.  When  I  asked  that 
question,  I  thought  the  meaning  of  my  interrogation  was 
obvious.  The  fate  of  this  question  and  of  America  may 
depend  ?on  this.  Have  they  said,  We,  the  States?  Have 
they  made  a  proposal  of  a  compact  between  States?  If 
they  had,  this  would  be  a  confederation.  It  is  otherwise 
most  clearly  a  consolidated  government.  The  question 
turns,  Sir,  on  that  poor  little  thing,  —  the  expression,  We, 
the  people,  instead  of  the  States  of  America.  I  need  not 
take  much  pains  to  show  that  the  principles  of  this  system 
are  extremely  pernicious,  impolitic,  and  dangerous." 

With  such  an  Introduction,  Henry  then  proceeded  to  pour 
down  upon  his  opponents  the  following  avalanche  of  points : 

That,  in  some  parts  of  the  Constitution,  the  rights  of 
freemen  were  endangered ;  in  other  parts,  taken  away. 

That  no  guarantees  were  given  for  proper  representation 
of  the  States  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

That  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  in  civil  cases  was  taken 
away,  and  in  criminal  cases  not  sufficiently  secured. 

That  the  army,  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  would  be 
an  instrument  of  oppression. 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  121— 
135. 


Strategy  373 

That  the  method  of  amendment,  provided  for,  made 
amendments  practically  impossible. 

That  the  Constitution  violated  the  spirit  of  democracy. 

That,  under  its  provisions,  to  punish  Federal  officials 
who  violated  their  trust  would  be  impossible. 

That  the  Federal  Government  would  deprive  the  States 
of  their  only  means  of  defense  against  tyranny  when  it  took 
over  control  of  the  State  militia. 

That  the  government  as  planned,  would  provide  no  effec- 
tive checks  and  balances. 

That  its  operation  would  result  in  oppression  of  the  middle 
and  the  lower  classes. 

That  it  violated  the  provisions  of  the  Virginia  Bill  of 
Rights. 

That  it  reduced  the  powers  of  the  States  to  nothing. 

That  it  created  a  double  system  of  taxation,  which  the 
people  could  not  possibly  endure. 

That  it  provided  a  President  who  might  easily  make  him- 
self king. 

That  by  giving  Congress  a  control  over  the  time,  place, 
and  manner  of  holding  elections,  it  would  destroy  utterly 
the  purpose  of  the  franchise. 

That  it  made  possible  a  reckless  expenditure  of  public 
money  without  any  responsibility  to  the  people. 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  points  used  by  Henry  in  his 
attack  on  the  Constitution ;  but  even  this  brief  list  may  be 
sufficient  to  show  the  general  nature  of  this  kind  of  strategy. 
In  this  case,  Henry  employed  the  strategy  of  direct  and  over- 
whelming assault  so  effectively  for  the  Negative,  that,  from 
the  very  outset,  throughout  the  entire  session  of  the  conven- 
tion, extending  over  twenty-three  days,  he  maintained  a 
continuous   offensive   against   the   advocates   of   the   Con- 


374  Making  the  Plea 

stitution,  forcing  them  to  follow  him  wherever  he  led,  and 
constantly  keeping  them  at  bay,  so  that  he  alone,  when 
pitted  against  the  ablest  statesmen  of  Virginia,  almost 
brought  about  the  rejection  of  the  Constitution  by  that 
State. 

Strategy  of   Taking  over  the  Enemy's  Positions.  —  The 

second  common  form  of  strategy  in  debate  is  that  of  taking 
over  the  enemy's  positions.  This  strategy  may  be  likened  to 
the  military  strategy  of  seizing  in  advance  all  the  positions 
that  the  enemy  had  expected  to  occupy,  reversing  their 
fronts,  and  from  them  directing  a  disconcerting  and  de- 
moralizing fire  on  the  opposing  forces.  This  strategy,  of 
course,  compels  the  enemy  to  take  up  the  defensive  around 
points  from  which  they  had  planned  to  launch  a  vigorous 
offensive. 

To  employ  this  strategy,  a  debater  must  anticipate  the 
constructive  proof  that  might  be  used  against  him ;  he  must 
turn  it  about  so  that  it  tends  to  prove  his  own  proposition 
rather  than  that  of  his  opponent;  and  then,  without  any 
thought  of  meeting  it  in  refutation,  he  must  use  it,  himself, 
at  the  very  outset  in  support  of  his  own  side  of  the  proposi- 
tion. 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  strategy  may  be  found 
in  the  development  of  the  following  case  used  in  a  college 
debate  *  on  the  proposition :  That  a  system  of  direct 
popular  election  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  should 
be  substituted  for  the  present  method  of  election  by  means 
of  the  Electoral  College. 

In  the  first  stages  of  developing  a  case  to  support  this 
proposition,  an  Affirmative  debater  might  consider  the  pur- 

1  From  the  case  used  by  Dartmouth  College  debaters  in  the  Dart- 
mouth-Brown debate  of  1918. 


Strategy  375 

pose  of  this  new  plan  to  be  to  prevent  the  election  of  a  Presi- 
dent by  less  than  a  plurality  of  all  votes.  If  the  Affirmative 
debater  developed  his  case  around  this  central  point,  however, 
he  would  use  no  strategy,  because  his  case  would  contain 
only  what  might  be  expected;  but  if,  on  the  contrary,  he 
considered  the  following  strong  objections  to  his  proposition, 
and  turned  them  about  to  support  his  side  of  the  case,  he 
would  then  be  able  to  use  this  type  of  strategy. 

Strong  points  that  the  Negative  might  expect  to  advance 
in  this  case  are  as  follows : 

I.    A  system  of  direct  popular  voting  would  discourage  an 
accurate  and  full  expression  of  public  opinion ;   for 

A.  Educational  campaigns  would  be  restricted  more 
and  more  to  populous  districts. 

B.  The  voter  would  be  less  likely  to  go  to  the  polls ;  for 
1.   The  individual  ballot  would  have  less  weight 

than  under  the  present  system  of  election  by 
means  of  the  Electoral  College. 

II.  It  would  threaten  the  peace  and  security  of  the  country ; 
for 

A.  States  with  small  populations  would  feel  that  their 
interest  in  the  national  administration  would  be 
reduced  to  a  negligible  quantity ;  and 

B.  This  opinion  of  their  own  insignificance  would  lessen 
their  ties  of  allegiance  to  the  government. 

III.  It  would  spread  corruption  in  national  elections;    for 

A.  It  would  cheapen  the  individual  ballot. 

B.  It  would  encourage  the  spread  of  bribery  into 
districts  hitherto  not  infected. 

IV,  It  would  coerce  States  against  their  inclination  and 
their  interests  to  liberalize  their  franchise ;  for 


376  Making  the  Plea 

A.  Under  this  new  system,  unless  States  did  liberalize 
their  franchise,  they  would  have  an  influence  in 
national  elections  far  below  their  proportional  im- 
portance in  respect  to  population. 

B.  In  some  States,  this  liberalization  would  be  most 
injurious;  for 

1.  The  Southern  States  in  particular  believe  they 
have  just  reasons  for  excluding  from  the  fran- 
chise large  numbers  of  their  people. 

To  take  over  the  enemy's  positions  in  this  case,  the  Affirma- 
tive would  revise  its  definition  of  the  purpose  of  the  proposi- 
tion and  contend  from  the  very  start  that  the  express  pur- 
pose of  the  proposition  was  to  produce  exactly  opposite 
conditions  to  those  represented  in  the  objections,  or  to  pro- 
duce the  same  conditions,  not  as  objectionable  results,  but 
as  highly  beneficial  results.  The  Affirmative  case,  then, 
after  the  application  of  this  strategy  would  appear  as  follows : 

I.  A  system  of  direct  popular  voting  would  safeguard  the 
peace  and  security  of  our  country  (see  point  II,  p.  375) ; 
for 

A.  It  would  prevent  the  election  of  a  President  by  less 
than  a  plurality. 

B.  It  would  encourage  an  accurate  and  full  expression 
of  public  opinion  (see  point  I,  p.  375) ;   for 

1.  Educational  campaigns  would  be  extended  more 
and  more  (see  point  I  A,  p.  375) ;  for 

(a)   All  votes  wherever  recorded  would  have  equal 
weight. 

2.  Voters  would  be  more  likely  to  go  to  the  polls 
(see  point  I  B,  p.  375) ;  for 

(a)   All  votes  wherever  recorded  would  have  equal 
weight. 


Strategy  377 

C.  It  would  discourage  dissatisfaction  in  populous  States 
arising  from  the  present  system  of  giving  undue 
importance  to  non-populous  States.  (See  point  II A 
and  II  B,  p.  375.) 

D.  It  would  discourage  corruption  (see  point  III,  p.  375) ; 
for 

1.  It  would  discourage  buying  up  a  small  block  of 
voters  in  states  now  considered  pivotal. 

2.  It  would  necessitate  corruption  on  too  large  a 
scale  to  be  practical. 

E.  It  would  coerce  certain  States  to  liberalize  their  fran- 
chise in  order  to  promote  their  own  best  interests 
(see  point  IV,  p.  375) ;  for 

1.  The  Southern  States  in  particular  are  deceived 
in  believing  that  they  have  just  reasons  for  ex- 
cluding from  the  franchise  large  numbers  of  their 
people.     (See  point  IV  B  1,  p.  376.) 

Strategy  of  Scattering  the  Enemy's  Forces.  —  The  third 
common  form  of  strategy  in  debate  is  that  of  scattering  the 
enemy's  forces.  When  this  strategy  is  used  in  conjunction 
with  that  of  taking  over  the  enemy's  positions  and  with  that 
of  direct  and  overwhelming  assault,  it  exerts  a  powerful 
influence  toward  throwing  the  enemy  into  utter  confusion. 

This  form  of  strategy  corresponds  exactly  to  that  of  a 
military  commander  who  challenges  his  adversary  to  engage 
in  so  many  minor  actions  all  along  his  front  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely impossible  for  him  ever  to  concentrate  his  forces  for  a 
direct  and  overwhelming  assault  on  any  particular  point. 

To  employ  this  strategy  in  debate,  a  speaker  lays  out  for 
his  opponent  all  the  points  that  he  must  prove ;  and,  then, 
in  the  Conclusion  of  his  speech,  he  challenges  his  opponent 
to  prove  all  these  points  or  surrender  his  case.     This  strategy 


378  Making  the  Plea 

becomes  effective  when  the  speaker  purposely  expands  his 
list  of  challenges  to  include  both  main  and  subordinate 
issues  all  mixed  in  together ;  for,  in  this  way,  he  is  enabled 
to  present  to  his  opponent  a  list  so  long  that  all  the  points 
in  it  could  never  be  considered  thoroughly  if  the  debate 
continued  forever. 

An  example  of  this  strategy  may  be  found  in  the  following 
conclusion  taken  from  a  speech  delivered  in  a  college  debate x 
on  the  Negative  of  the  proposition :  That  Illinois  should 
establish  an  industrial  court  similar  to  that  of  Kansas : 

"  In  this  case,"  said  the  Negative  speaker,  "the  Affirmative 
have  assumed  a  tremendous  burden  of  proof.  If  they  hope 
to  convince  you  of  the  truth  of  their  proposition,  they  must 
establish  beyond  all  doubt : 

"That  there  is  a  pressing  need  in  Illinois  to  justify  the 
establishment  of  such  a  revolutionary  tribunal ; 

"  That  the  struggle  between  labor  and  capital  in  Illinois 
presents  an  alarming  situation  requiring  drastic  action ; 

"  That  there  is  an  essential  similarity  between  the  labor 
situation  in  Kansas  and  the  labor  situation  in  Illinois ; 

"  That  labor  disturbances  in  Illinois  are  as  acute  as  in 
most  other  States  of  the  Union ; 

"  That  there  have  been  violent  labor  troubles  in  the  last 
decade ; 

"  That  the  labor  movement  in  Illinois  is  dominated  by  a 
radical  and  unruly  element ; 

"  That  Illinois  at  present  has  not  sufficient  machinery  to 
cope  with  any  labor  disturbance ; 

"That  arbitration  and  mediation  in  the  past  have  failed 
to  adjust  disputes  quickly  and  in  a  satisfactory  manner ; 


1  From  the  case  of  a  Knox  College  Freshman  debater  in  the  Knox- 
Illinois  Freshman  debate  of  1921. 


Strategy  379 

"That  the  State  is  powerless  to  protect  property  and 
private  rights  by  recourse  to  the  police,  the  National  Guard, 
and  the  ordinary  courts ; 

"  That  public  opinion  does  not  exert  sufficient  influence  to 
compel  the  continuous  operation  of  public  service  industries ; 

"  That  advanced  labor  laws  in  this  State  have  not  served 
to  pacify  labor ;  —  and 

"  That  tendencies  toward  industrial  democracy  do  not 
promote  peace  between  labor  and  capital. 

"  When  the  Affirmative  has  proved  these  points  to  your 
satisfaction  —  a  thing,  which  we  believe  they  cannot  do  — 
then  we  demand  of  them  that  they  establish  beyond  all 
doubt : 

"  That  the  Kansas  court  has  had  sufficient  trial  to  justify 
its  adoption  in  Illinois ; 

"  That  it  has  been  tested  to  show  its  permanence  by  some 
extreme  case ; 

"  That  it  will  always  be  impartial  both  to  capital  and  to 
labor ; 

"  That  it  will  not  reflect  the  sympathies  of  either  capital 
or  labor ; 

"  That  it  will  be  composed  of  men  capable  of  rendering 
far-sighted  decisions ; 

"  That  it  will  not  be  dominated  by  partisan  politicians ; 

"  That  it  will  be  held  responsible  for  its  decisions  to  the 
public  at  large ; 

"  That  it  can  enforce  its  decisions ; 

"  That  it  can  overcome  the  distrust  of  both  labor  and 
capital ; 

"  That  it  can  force  labor  to  work  against  its  will ; 

"  That  its  power  of  arrest  can  deprive  labor  of  all  its 
leaders ; 


380  Making  the  Plea 

"That  its  power  of  attachment  can  remove  all  sources 
of  funds  from  labor  organizations  within  the  State ; 

"  That  it  can  supply  trained  workers  to  break  up  strikes ; 
—  and 

"  That  it  can  induce  capital  to  remain  within  the  State 
after  an  adverse  decision ; 

"  And  this  is  not  all  we  demand  of  the  Affirmative ;  for 
we  demand  also  that  they  demonstrate  clearly : 

"  Why  this  court  will  not  reduce  labor  to  a  condition  of 
involuntary  servitude ; 

"Why  it  will  not  promote  the  confiscation  of  private 
property  without  due  compensation ; 

"  Why  it  will  not  produce  an  unwarranted  exercise  of 
paternalism ; 

"  Why  it  will  not  result  in  the  abandonment  of  private 
enterprise  to  government  ownership  and  operation ; 

"  Why  it  will  not  result  in  the  further  entrenchment  of 
corrupt  political  machines ;  —  and 

"  Why,  in  serious  cases,  it  will  not  sow  the  seeds  of  sedition 
and  civil  war. 

"  All  this,  we  demand  that  the  Affirmative  shall  prove  to 
your  complete  satisfaction.  We  believe  they  cannot  do  so. 
If  they  fail,  however,  to  establish  each  of  these  points  we  be- 
lieve that  they  must,  also,  fail  to  establish  their  case." 

Strategy  of  Retreat.  —  The  fourth  common  form  of 
strategy  is  that  of  retreat.  This  strategy  corresponds  to  the 
strategy  of  a  military  commander  who  finds  himself  in  a 
position  that  is  exposed  to  attack  on  all  sides  and  that  offers 
only  one  or  two  points  from  which  he  may  direct  a  successful 
defensive,  or  offensive,  action.  A  commander,  in  such  a 
situation,  adopts  the  strategy  of  retreat ;  that  is,  he  orders 
a  retreat  from  every  weak  or  untenable  position,  and  con- 


Strategy  381 

centrates  his  forces  on  points  that  give  him  the  greatest 
advantage  in  coping  with  his  adversary. 

In  debate,  this  kind  of  strategy  consists  in  making  sweeping 
admissions  of  what  an  opponent  has  labored  to  prove,  saving 
only  one  or  two  points  on  which  the  speaker  may  rely,  or 
shifting  the  whole  dispute  to  other  points  not  yet  taken  into 
consideration. 

This  form  of  strategy  is  always  one  of  the  most  clever 
that  a  speaker  may  employ ;  but  in  cases  when  a  debate  has 
been  spread  out  over  a  wide  range  of  points  that  are  perfectly 
unmanageable,  then  it  is  not  only  clever,  but  absolutely 
necessary. 

The  advantage  gained  by  this  kind  of  strategy  is  that  an 
opponent  is  led  to  attack  in  full  force  position  after  position, 
only  to  find  that  these  positions  have  been  abandoned  in 
advance  and  that  he  has  wasted  his  time  and  his  energy  in 
simply  beating  the  air. 

Several  illustrations  of  the  way  in  which  this  strategy 
may  be  applied  are  given  below  in  connection  with  the 
proposition :  Resolved :  That  the  United  States  should 
enact  a  Japanese  exclusion  law  exactly  similar  to  the  Chinese 
exclusion  law. 

In  a  discussion  of  this  proposition,  the  Negative  would, 
of  course,  expect  and  demand  that  the  Affirmative  should 
prove  the  Japanese  to  be  a  menace  in  America.  Then, 
when  the  Affirmative  had  proved  that  they  were  a  menace 
socially,  morally,  politically,  and  industrially,  the  Negative 
might  admit  this  fact,  and  contend  that  present  laws  and 
diplomatic  agreements  were  taking  care  of  the  situation. 

If  the  Affirmative  proved  that  the  Japanese  were  a  menace 
and  that  the  present  laws  and  diplomatic  agreements  were 
inadequate,  the  Negative  might  admit  both  these  facts, 
and  contend  that  the  proposed  legislation  was  futile. 


382  Making  the  Plea 

If  the  Affirmative  proved  that  the  Japanese  were  a  menace, 
that  present  laws  and  diplomatic  agreements  were  inadequate, 
and  that  the  exclusion  measure  would  reduce  the  menace; 
the  Negative  might  admit  all  three  of  these  points,  and  con- 
tend that  the  measure  would  do  much  more  harm  than  good ; 
or  the  Negative  might  admit  all  three  of  these  points,  and 
contend  that  a  policy  of  opening  up  some  new  territory  in 
the  Orient  for  Japan's  surplus  population  would  do  much 
more  good  and  much  less  harm. 

All  these  instances,  it  will  be  noted,  are  given  in  connection 
with  Negative  cases,  and  indicate  that  this  kind  of  strategy 
is  much  more  practical  for  the  Negative  than  for  the  Affirma- 
tive. An  Affirmative  speaker  can,  however,  employ  this 
strategy  to  a  certain  extent;  as,  for  example,  in  the  case 
above,  he  could  admit  that  his  proposition  entailed  certain 
harmful  consequences,  and  that  the  Negative's  proposition 
would  do  some  good ;  and  then  contend  that  the  Affirmative 
plan  contained  more  good  and  less  harm  than  the  plan  that 
the  Negative  would  substitute  for  it. 

Strategy  of  Skirmishing.  — The  fifth  common  form  of 
strategy  is  that  of  skirmishing.  This  strategy  is  like  that  of  a 
military  commander  who  realizes  that  his  main  position  is 
weak,  and  who,  therefore,  seeks  to  engage  his  enemy  in 
numerous  minor  actions  on  outlying  positions,  with  the  hope 
that,  in  this  way,  he  may  be  able  to  shift  his  position,  or  at 
least  divert  the  enemy  from  any  concentrated  attack  on 
his  point  of  greatest  weakness. 

In  debate,  this  strategy  is  employed  to  accomplish  essen- 
tially the  same  purpose.  It  is  the  strategy  of  a  weak  case ; 
and  consists  usually  in  shifting  the  discussion  from  proposition 
to  proposition,  or  from  the  real  issues  under  a  proposition  to 
considerations  of  an  entirely  personal  nature. 


Strategy  383 

To  illustrate  how  this  strategy  is  sometimes  employed,  we 
have  the  anecdote  of  a  young  lawyer  who  presented  to  his 
senior  partner  a  trial-brief  for  criticism;  and,  when  he 
received  it  back  again,  he  found  this  comment  on  it :  "  No 
case.    Abuse  the  opposing  counsel." 

An  instance  of  the  use  of  this  strategy  is  found  in  one  of 
the  greatest  debates  in  American  history,  the  famous  debate 
between  Hayne  and  Webster.  This  debate  started  with  a 
discussion  of  a  resolution  introduced  into  the  Senate  by 
Senator  Foote  of  Connecticut,  who  proposed  to  establish  a 
committee  of  inquiry  into  the  sales  and  surveys  of  Western 
lands.  The  main  debate  on  this  resolution  was  opened  by 
Senator  Benton  of  Missouri,  who  immediately  departed  from 
the  subject  of  the  resolution  and  entered  on  a  labored  attack 
against  New  England ;  and,  when  Benton  had  finished,  the 
debate  was  continued  by  Hayne  of  South  Carolina,  who 
carried  further  Benton's  charges  against  New  England. 
Webster,  then,  gave  his  first  reply  to  Hayne;  and  Hayne 
came  back  in  rejoinder.  By  this  time,  the  original  resolu- 
tion had  almost  entirely  dropped  out  of  the  controversy, 
and  Hayne  had  plainly  resorted  to  the  strategy  of  skirmishing 
with  the  hope  of  shifting  the  question  to  a  consideration  of 
South  Carolina's  doctrine  of  Nullification,  and  with  the  hope, 
also,  of  discrediting  forever  both  Webster  and  the  whole 
section  of  the  country  that  he  represented. 

In  carrying  out  the  strategy  of  skirmishing,  Hayne  said 
almost  nothing  about  the  Foote  Resolution,  and  engaged 
Webster  in  all  the  following  points  of  controversy  before  he 
turned  finally  to  the  question  of  Nullification.  The  points 
raised  by  Hayne  in  skirmishing  were : * 

1.   That  Webster  wished  to  postpone  the  debate  through 
fear  of  what  Hayne  had  to  say. 
1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  I,  pp.  233-247. 


384  Making  the  Plea 

2.  That  Webster  could  not  meet  the  arguments  of  Hayne 

when  and  where  they  were  advanced. 

3.  That  Webster  chose  to  attack  Hayne  because  Webster 

knew  he  was  no  match  for  Benton. 

4.  That  Webster  was  seeking  to  interfere  with  the  slave- 

system  of  the  South. 

5.  That  Webster  was  inconsistent  in  his  policy  concerning 

the  Western  lands. 

6.  That  Webster  wished  to  increase  the  growing  burden 

of  the  national  debt. 

7.  That  Webster  wished  to  consolidate  the  Union  by 

taking  away  further  powers  from  the  States. 

8.  That  the  policy  of  New  England  in  respect  to  Western 

lands  had  been  dictated  by  selfish  political  and 
economic  interests. 

9.  That  New  England  had  been  the  source  of  all  the 

oppressive   measures  for   a  protective  tariff  and 
internal  improvements. 
10.  That  New  England  had  held  opinions  on  Nullification 
as  dangerous  as  those  now  held  by  South  Carolina. 

The  strategy  of  skirmishing  employed  by  Hayne  in  this 
way  was  entirely  successful,  in  that  it  did  shift  the  grounds 
of  controversy  continually  from  one  proposition  to  another, 
and  in  that,  for  the  time  being,  it  did  tend  to  discredit  Web- 
ster and  New  England  before  the  Senate ;  but  Webster  was 
too  powerful  an  antagonist  to  be  overcome  by  mere  skirmish- 
ing. He  did  what  almost  no  other  man  could  do;  for  he 
took  up  one  by  one  each  of  the  points  raised  by  Hayne  and 
crushed  it  forever ;  and,  then,  pinning  Hayne  down  to  the  one 
proposition  about  Nullification,  he  proceeded  to  demolish 
that  also  with  a  direct  and  overwhelming  assault.1 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  I,  pp.  248-302. 


Strategy  385 

Strategy  of  Drawing  the  Enemy's  Fire.  —  The  sixth 
common  form  of  strategy  is  that  of  drawing  the  enemy's 
fire.  In  actual  warfare,  this  strategy  is  employed  when  a 
commander  realizes  that  his  main  position  is  strong,  when  he 
refuses  to  become  engaged  in  minor  actions  on  outlying  posi- 
tions, and  when  he  invites  the  enemy  to  attack  him  where 
he  stands  or  not  at  all.  In  other  words,  this  strategy  is  the 
kind  usually  employed  to  counteract  the  strategy  of  skir- 
mishing. 

To  employ  this  strategy  in  debate,  a  speaker  simply  makes 
plain  to  his  audience  that  his  opponent  is  very  obviously 
trying  to  dodge  the  question,  and  then  he  challenges  him  so 
plainly  to  meet  his  case  as  he  presents  it,  that  further  skir- 
mishing is  impossible. 

An  instance  of  the  use  of  this  strategy  is  found  in 
the  speech  delivered  by  Webster  in  the  White  Murder 
Case,   when   he   said: 

"  We  wish  nothing  to  be  strained  against  the  defendant. 
Why,  then,  all  this  alarm  ?  Why  all  this  complaint  against 
the  manner  in  which  the  crime  is  discovered  ?  The  prisoner's 
counsel  catch  at  supposed  flaws  of  evidence,  or  bad  character 
of  witnesses,  without  meeting  the  case.  Do  they  mean  to 
deny  the  conspiracy?  Do  they  mean  to  deny  that  the  two 
Crowninshields  and  the  two  Knapps  were  conspirators? 
Why  do  they  rail  against  Palmer,  while  they  do  not  disprove, 
and  hardly  dispute,  the  truth  of  any  fact  sworn  to  by  him? 
Instead  of  this,  it  is  made  matter  of  sentimentality  that 
Palmer  has  been  prevailed  upon  to  betray  his  bosom  com- 
panions and  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  friendship.  Again  I 
ask,  Why  do  they  not  meet  the  case  ?  If  the  fact  is  out, 
why  not  meet  it?  Do  they  mean  to  deny  that  Captain 
White  is  dead  ?     One  would  have  almost  supposed  even  that, 


386  Making  the  Plea 

from  some  remarks  that  have  been  made.  Do  they  mean  to 
deny  the  conspiracy?  Or,  admitting  a  conspiracy,  do  they 
mean  to  deny  only  that  Frank  Knapp,  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  was  abetting  in  the  murder,  being  present,  and  so  deny 
that  he  was  a  principal  ?  If  a  conspiracy  is  proved,  it  bears 
closely  upon  every  subsequent  subject  of  inquiry.  Why  do 
they  not  come  to  the  fact?  Here  the  defense  is  wholly  in- 
distinct. The  counsel  neither  take  the  ground,  nor  abandon 
it.  They  neither  fly,  nor  light.  They  hover.  But  they 
must  come  to  a  closer  mode  of  contest.  They  must  meet  the 
facts,  and  either  deny  or  admit  them.  Had  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  then,  a  knowledge  of  this  conspiracy  or  not?  This 
is  the  question.  Instead  of  laying  out  their  strength  in 
complaining  of  the  manner  in  which  the  deed  is  discovered, 
of  the  extraordinary  pains  taken  to  bring  the  prisoner's 
guilt  to  light,  would  it  not  be  better  to  show  there  was  no 
guilt  ?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  show  his  innocence  ?  They 
say,  and  they  complain,  that  the  community  feel  a  great 
desire  that  he  should  be  punished  for  his  crimes.  Would  it 
not  be  better  to  convince  you  that  he  has  committed  no 
crime  f"1 

Strategy  of  Bottling-Up  the  Enemy.  —  The  seventh  com- 
mon form  of  strategy  is  that  of  bottling-up  the  enemy. 
This  strategy  corresponds  to  that  of  a  military  commander 
who  lures  his  adversary  into  a  trap  from  which  there  is  no 
escape. 

To  employ  this  strategy  in  debate,  a  speaker  must,  first, 
discover  a  dilemma 2  in  his  opponent's  case,  and  then  he  must 
force  his  opponent  into  this  dilemma  by  challenging  him  so 
conspicuously  to  face  it  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  his 

1  Shurter,  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pp.  75-76. 
58  See  pages  130-134. 


Strategy  387 

escaping.  To  make  such  a  challenge  effective,  the  debater 
should  always  place  it  at  the  very  end  of  his  speech. 

One  of  the  most  successful  instances  in  which  this  strategy 
was  ever  used  occurred  in  a  debate  between  Governor  Allen 
of  Kansas  and  Samuel  Gompers  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  when  they  discussed  in  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York, 
the  question  of  whether  or  not  a  law  preventing  strikes,  such 
as  the  law  establishing  the  Kansas  State  Industrial  Court, 
was  an  infringement  upon  the  inalienable  rights  of  every  indi- 
vidual workman. 

The  New  York  Times  of  May  29,  1920,  gives  the  follow- 
ing graphic  account  of  the  manner  in  which  Governor  Allen 
employed  this  strategy : 

"  In  summing  up  his  side  of  the  controversy,  Governor 
Allen  asked  the  following  question,  which  Gompers  failed  to 
answer : 

"  '  When  a  dispute  between  capital  and  labor  brings  on  a 
strike  affecting  the  production  or  distribution  of  the  neces- 
saries of  life,  thus  threatening  the  public  peace  and  impairing 
the  public  health,  has  the  public  any  rights  in  such  a  contro- 
versy, or  is  it  a  private  war  between  capital  and  labor  ? 

"  *  If  you  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  Mr. 
Gompers,  how  would  you  protect  the  rights  of  the  pub- 
lic? 

"  '  And  in  addition,  I  wish  him  to  define  for  us,  if  he  will, 
who  had  the  divine  right  to  forbid  the  switchmen  to  strike 
in  their  outlaw  strike ;  who  controls  this  divine  right  to  quit 
work?' 

" '  If  I  had  time,  I  would  answer  that  question/  Mr. 
Gompers  replied. 

"  '  You  can't ;  you  can't/  voices  cried  in  all  parts  of  the 
hall. 


388  Making  the  Plea 

"  1 1  will  prove  to  you  that  I  can,  if  I  live  long  enough/ 
Mr.  Gompers  said.  '  Let  me  say  this :  an  innocent  child 
can  ask  more  questions  of  his  father  —  ' 

"  '  Answer  it ;  answer/  came  the  cries. 

"  '  The  Governor's  adherents  are  ladies  and  gentlemen/ 
retorted  Mr.  Gompers  sarcastically.  i  I  shall  try  to  meet  the 
Governor's  statements  as  best  I  can.'  " 

In  this  debate,  Governor  Allen  plainly  bottled  up  his 
opponent;  because,  if  Gompers  answered  that  the  public 
did  have  some  rights  to  interfere  in  such  a  controversy,  then 
of  course  he  would  have  to  admit  that  the  right  of  labor  to 
strike  was  not  altogether  inalienable,  and  that  the  public's 
right  would  have  to  be  exercised  by  some  such  governmental 
agency  as  the  Kansas  Industrial  Court.  If,  however,  Mr. 
Gompers  answered  that  the  public  had  no  right  to  interfere 
with  labor's  right  to  strike,  because  this  right  was  inalienable, 
then,  of  course,  he  would  have  to  explain  why  he,  himself, 
had  tried  to  interfere  with  that  inalienable  right  in  the 
recent  switchmen's  strike  which  he  himself  had  denounced 
and  forbidden.  By  Allen's  cleverly  framed  questions, 
Gompers  was  obliged  either  to  admit  his  opponent's  case, 
or  set  himself  up  as  a  dictator  in  this  country  with  divine 
authority  superior  to  that  of  the  government  and  sufficient 
even  to  destroy  those  rights  which  he  himself  said  were 
inalienable. 

An  opportunity  to  thrust  an  opponent  into  such  a  dilemma 
as  this  is  not  often  given ;  but,  when  it  is,  it  should  be  seized 
immediately  and  pressed  against  an  opponent  ruthlessly 
and  persistently  until  he  admits  that  he  is  beaten. 

The  one  great  caution  that  must  be  observed  in  attempting 
to  employ  this  kind  of  strategy  is  that  the  debater  must 
know  in  advance  all  possible  answers  that  may  be  given  to 


Strategy  389 

his  challenge ;  and  he  must  know  also  that  whatever  answer 
is  chosen  by  his  opponent  will  operate  to  destroy  his  oppo- 
nent's position.  If  this  caution  is  not  observed,  the  'debater's 
challenge  may  be  met  with  a  crushing  reply ;  and  then  the 
debater  is  in  a  much  worse  position  than  if  he  had  not  tried 
to  use  any  strategy  at  all. 

Strategy  of  Evading  Traps.  —  The  eighth  common  form 
of  strategy  is  that  of  evading  traps,  and  is  intended  to  counter- 
act the  previous  strategy  of  bottling-up  an  enemy. 

To  employ  this  strategy,  a  debater  may  employ  any  one 
of  the  five  following  devices.     He  may : 

1.  Ignore  the  Trap ; 

2.  Substitute  a  Harmless  Trap  for  the  Real  One ; 

3.  Reverse  the  Trap  against  His  Opponent ; 

4.  Break  Down  One  Side  of  the  Trap ;  or 

5.  Find  a  Loophole  in  the  Trap. 

In  the  great  series  of  debates  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas 
during  their  campaigns  for  the  Senate  in  1858,  we  find 
instance  after  instance  of  the  way  in  which  each  of  these 
wary  debaters  employed  this  strategy  to  evade  traps  that 
his  opponent  had  set  for  him.  I 

One  of  the  chief  objects  of  both  the  speakers  in  these 
debates  was  to  put  his  opponent  in  a  position  where  he  would 
lose  the  support  either  of  the  pro-slavery  faction  in  one  part 
of  Illinois  or  of  the  anti-slavery  faction  in  another  part  of 
Illinois.  Pursuing  this  policy,  therefore,  each  put  to  the 
other  as  many  embarrassing  questions  as  he  could. 

One  of  Douglas's  questions  for  Lincoln  to  answer  was: 
If  he  were  elected  to  the  Senate,  would  he  vote  for  the  admission 
of  any  more  slave  States,  in  the  event  the  people  wanted  them  f 
Now  an  answer  to  this  question  in  the  affirmative  would  have 


390  Making  the  Plea 

alienated  the  anti-slavery,  Abolition  faction  in  northern 
Illinois,  and  an  answer  in  the  negative  would  have  alienated 
the  pro-slavery  faction  in  southern  Illinois.  Lincoln  saw 
the  trap  plainly,  and,  very  much  to  the  disgust  of  Judge 
Douglas,  ignored  it  completely  while  speaking  in  northern 
Illinois  and  then  tried  another  means  of  evasion  when  he 
spoke  in  southern  Illinois. 

Lincoln's  second  means  of  evading  this  trap  was  to  sub- 
stitute a  harmless  one  in  its  place,  which  he  could  easily  dispose 
of.  This  he  did  by  revising  completely  the  case  put  to  him 
in  the  question  of  his  opponent,  and  then  giving  his  answer 
to  fit  the  case  that  he  himself  had  invented.  Instead 
of  answering  directly  the  case  put  by  Douglas,  Lincoln 
said : f 

"  I  state  to  you  freely,  frankly,  that  I  should  be  exceedingly 
sorry  to  ever  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to  pass  upon 
that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that 
there  never  would  be  another  slave  State  admitted  into  this 
Union.  But  I  must  add,  in  regard  to  this,  that  if  slavery 
shall  be  kept  out  of  the  territory  during  the  territorial  exist- 
ence of  any  one  given  territory,  and  then  the  people  should, 
having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field,  when  they  come  to 
adopt  a  constitution,  if  they  should  do  the  extraordinary 
thing  of  adopting  a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the 
actiial  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alter- 
native, if  we  own  the  country,  but  we  must  admit  it  into  the 
Union.,, 

By  substituting  his  own  case  for  the  case  presented  to 
him  in  the  question  given  by  Douglas,  Lincoln  evaded  both 
horns  of  Douglas's  dilemma,  and  seized  the  opportunity 
to  state   once   more   his  original   position   of   condemning 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  246. 


Strategy  391 

the  policy  of  Douglas  in  respect  to  the  admission  of  Kan- 
sas.1 

Both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  were  very  fond  of  the  method 
of  evasion  by  which  they  might  reverse  a  trap  against  the  one 
who  set  it;  that  is,  the  method  of  asking  an  opponent  to  answer 
his  own  questions.     Lincoln,  for  example,  asked  Douglas: 

If  the  people  of  Kansas  should  form  a  constitution  by  means 
entirely  proper  and  unobjectionable,  and  ask  admission  as  a 
State,  before  they  had  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of 
Congress,  would  he  vote  for  that  admission?  And  Douglas 
replied : 

"  Well  now,  I  regret  exceedingly  that  he  [Lincoln]  did  not 
answer  that  interrogatory  himself  before  he  put  it  to  me,  in 
order  that  we  might  understand,  and  not  be  left  to  infer,  on 
which  side  he  is."  2 

In  a  similar  case,  Douglas  asked  Lincoln  the  question: 
Why  he  could  not  let  the  country  remain  part  slave  and  part  free, 
as  the  fathers  of  the  government  made  it.  And  Lincoln 
answered  by  saying : 

"  He  asks  a  question  based  upon  an  assumption  which  is 
itself  a  falsehood ;  and  I  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him  the 
question,  when  the  policy  that  the  fathers  of  the  government 
had  adopted  in  relation  to  this  element  among  us  was  the 
best  policy  in  the  world,  the  only  wise  policy,  the  only  policy 
that  we  can  ever  safely  continue  upon,  that  will  ever  give 
us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  element  masters  us  all  and 
becomes  a  national  institution  —  I  turn  upon  him  and  ask 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  pp.  245- 
248. 

2  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  III,  p.  185. 


392  Making  the  Plea 

him  why  he  could  not  leave  it  alone.  I  turn  and  ask  him  why 
he  was  driven  to  the  necessity  of  introducing  a  new  policy 
in  regard  to  it."  * 

One  of  the  cunningly  put  questions  of  Lincoln  to  Douglas 
in  these  debates  was :  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  should  decide  that  a  State  of  this  Union  could  not  exclude 
slavery  from  its  own  limits,  would  Douglas  submit  to  it  ?  Lin- 
coln thought  that  if  Douglas  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
then  he  would  have  to  retract  his  doctrine  of  Popular  Sover- 
eignty, and  if  he  answered  in  the  negative,  then  he  would  be 
a  rebel  to  the  recognized  authority  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment ;  but  Douglas  shrewdly  answered  by  breaking  down  one 
side  of  the  trap,  or  one  of  the  horns  of  the  dilemma,  in  the 
following  way : 

"  I  am  amazed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  ask  such  a  question. 
Mr.  Lincoln's  object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon  the  Su- 
preme Court.  He  knows  that  there  never  was  but  one  man 
in  America,  claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence  or  decency, 
who  ever  for  a  moment  pretended  such  a  thing.  It  is  true 
that  the  Washington  Union,  in  an  article  published  on  the 
17th  of  last  December,  did  put  forth  that  doctrine  and  I 
denounced  the  article  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Lincoln  knows  that  reply  was  made  on  the  spot,  and  yet  he 
now  asks  this  question  !  .  .  .  He  casts  an  imputation  upon 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  supposing  that  they 
would  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  tell 
him  that  such  a  thing  is  not  possible.  It  would  be  an  act  of 
moral  treason  that  no  man  on  the  bench  could  ever  descend 
to.  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  would  never,  in  his  partisan  feeling, 
so  far  forget  what  was  right  as  to  be  guilty  of  such  an  act." 2 

1  Denney,  Duncan,  McKinney,  Argumentation  and  Debate,  p.  272. 

2  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  III,  p.  190. 


Strategy  393 

In  the  preceding  instance,  Douglas  showed  how  he  could 
break  down  a  trap  set  for  him  by  Lincoln ;  and,  in  the  follow- 
ing instance,  Lincoln  showed  how  he  could  find  a  loophole 
in  the  trap  set  for  him  by  Douglas.  When  Douglas  asked 
Lincoln  and  his  audience  whether  they  would  prefer  to  exclude 
negroes  from  the  equality  attributed  to  all  men  under  the 
Declaration  of  Independence ;  or  whether  they  would  prefer 
to  admit  them  to  such  an  equality,  and  vote,  and  eat,  and 
sleep,  and  marry  with  them;  Lincoln  promptly  discovered 
a  loophole  in  the  trap,  or  a  third  harmless  horn  of  the  di- 
lemma, and  replied : 

"  Now  I  protest  against  the  counterfeit  logic  which  con- 
cludes that  because  I  do  not  want  a  black  woman  for  a  slave, 
I  must  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.  I  need  not  have  her 
for  either.     I  can  just  leave  her  alone. "  l 

All  of  the  five  different  methods,  explained  here,  for  evad- 
ing traps  set  by  one's  opponent  may,  at  some  time  or  other, 
prove  useful  to  a  debater.  Whenever  a  trap  has  been  sprung 
in  the  middle  of  an  opponent's  speech,  and  has  never  made  a 
deep  impression  on  the  audience,  or  has  been  forgotten  by 
them,  then  the  debater  may  employ  the  method  of  ignoring 
it  altogether.  If,  however,  the  trap  is  sprung  at  the  end  of 
an  opponent's  speech*  then  it  can  be  ignored  only  by  promis- 
ing to  answer  it  later  on  in  the  course  of  the  argument  and 
then  by  forgetting  all  about  it.  The  best  way,  however,  to 
dispose  of  a  trap  sprung  at  the  very  end  of  a  speech  is  to 
answer  it  immediately  by  substituting  a  harmless  trap  for 
the  real  one ;  by  reversing  the  trap  against  one's  opponent ; 
by  breaking  down  one  side  of  the  trap ;  or  by  finding  a  loop- 
hole in  it. 

1  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  American  Orations,  III,  p.  162. 


394  Making  the  Plea 

Strategy  of  Concealed  Objective.  —  The  ninth  common 
form  of  strategy  is  that  of  a  concealed  objective.  This  kind 
of  strategy  may  be  likened  to  that  of  a  military  commander, 
who  advances  first  here  and  then  there,  never  giving  his 
adversary  any  indication  regarding  what  position  he  intends 
eventually  to  occupy,  and,  therefore,  giving  him  no  oppor- 
tunity to  plan  a  systematic  and  orderly  defense,  but  always 
advancing  and  steadily  gaining  ground  from  the  enemy  until 
at  last  he  is  ready  to  close  in  upon  him  and  demand  his 
surrender. 

This  strategy  in  debate  is  generally  employed  when  a 
speaker  faces  a  hostile  or  prejudiced  audience.  It  consists 
in  suppressing  the  partition  in  the  Introduction  of  the  speech, 
and  in  withholding  each  main  point,  or  even  the  proposition, 
until  all  the  evidence  and  argument  have  been  presented  to 
uphold  it.  No  strategy  is  more  baffling  than  this  to  over- 
come; and  none  requires  greater  skill,  perseverance,  and 
insight  to  be  carried  out  to  a  successful  conclusion. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  instances  of  the  use  of  this 
strategy  is  found  in  the  last  speech  of  John  C.  Calhoun  on 
the  Slavery  Question,  a  speech  delivered  in  the  United  States 
Senate  on  March  4,  1850,  during  the  debates  on  Clay's 
Compromise  Measure,  then  before  Congress.1  An  outline 
of  this  speech  is  given  below,  showing  how  Calhoun  con- 
cealed each  of  his  main  points  and  hi!  proposition  until  the 
proof  for  each  had  been  given.  The  outline  of  this  speech 
contains  the  following  order  of  points  : 

Introduction 

I.  I  have  believed  from  the  first  that  the  agitation  of  the 
subject  of  slavery  would,  if  not  prevented  by  some 
timely  and  effective  measure,  end  in  disunion ;  and 


1  Bradley's  Orations  and  Arguments,  pp.  271-297. 


Strategy  395 

II.   I   have  repeatedly  asked   for  the   adoption   of   some 
measure  to  prevent  such  a  disaster ;  but 

III.  This  agitation  has  been  permitted  to  proceed  with 
almost  no  attempt  to  resist  it ;  and 

IV.  Now  the  Union  is  endangered  ;  and 

V.  You  have  forced  upon  you  the  question  —  How  can  the 
Union  be  preserved  ? 

Discussion 

I.  To  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  question,  we  must 
first  inquire  —  What  is  it  that  has  endangered  the 
Union  ? 

A.  To  this  question  there  is  but  one  answer  —  The 
universal  discontent  of  the  Southern  section  with 
the  Union ;   and 

B.  What  has  caused  this  universal  discontent  ? 

1 .  It  was  not  caused  by  demagogues  and  politicians ; 
but 

2.  It  was  caused  by  the  long-continued  agitation 
against  slavery ;  and 

3.  Back  of  this  cause,  the  great  and  primary  cause 
is  that  the  old  equilibrium  between  the  North 
and  the  South  has  been  destroyed. 

4.  The  South  would  not  complain  of  this  destruc- 
tion of  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sec- 
tions, if  this  had  been  the  result  of  the  operation 
of  time ;  but 

5.  The  South  does  complain  of  this,  because  it  was 
due  to  interference  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment; for 

(a)  The  government  has  excluded  the  South 
from  common  territory  belonging  to  all  the. 
States;  and 


396  Making  the  Plea 

(b)  The  government  has  taxed  the  South  dispro- 
portionately for  the  benefit  of  the  North ;  and 

(c)  The  government  has  radically  changed  from 
its  original  character ;  and 

6.  The  South  does  complain  of  this,  because 

(a)  The  North  has  been  given  a  predominance 
in  every  department  of  the  government ;  and 

(6)  With  this  predominance,  the  North  can 
sacrifice  the  interests  of  the  South  when- 
ever the  interests  of  the  two  sections  con- 
flict; and 

(c)  The  interests  of  the  two  sections  do  conflict ; 
for 

(1)   Every  portion  of  the  North  is  more  or 
less  hostile  to  slavery ;  and 

7.  This  agitation  against  slavery  has  grown  from 
insignificance  to  a  position  in  which  it  may 
threaten  the  institution  in  the  South ;  for 

(a)   It  has  begun  to  shape  the  policies  of  both 

political  parties ; 
(6)   It  has  demanded  the  admission  of  no  more 

slave  States ;  and 
(c)   Unless  it  is  checked,  nothing  will  prevent 
its  demand  for    the    abolition    of    slavery 
in  the  South. 
C.  This  agitation  against  slavery  has  already  broken 
many  of  the  bonds  that  tie  the  Union   together, 
and  is  weakening  many  others ;  for 

1.  It  has  broken  many  ties  through  common  reli- 
gious denominations ;   and 

2.  It  is  breaking  many  ties  through  common 
political  parties;    and 

3.  It  is  leaving  only  the  tie  of  force  and  subjugation. 


Strategy  397 

II.  Since,  now,  I  have  explained  what  endangers  the  Union, 
let  us  see  how  the  Union  can  be  saved. 

A.  To  this  question  there  is  but  one  answer  —  By 
adopting  measures  that  will  satisfy  the  South 
that  it  can  remain  in  the  Union  consistently  with 
its  honor  and  its  safety. 

B.  The  Union  cannot  be  saved  by  merely  pronouncing 
eulogies  upon  it ; 

C.  Nor  can  it  be  saved  by  invoking  the  name  of  the 
great  Virginian,  George  Washington ; 

P.  Nor  can  it  be  saved  by  Clay's  Compromise  Meas- 
ure; 
E.  Nor  can  it  be  saved  by  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
Administration.1 
III.   Having  now  shown  you  what  cannot  save  the  Union, 
I  return  to  the  question  with  which  I  commenced  — 
How  can  the  Union  be  saved  ? 

A.  There  is  but  one  way,  and  that  is  by  a  full  and 
final  settlement  of  all  issues  between  the  two 
sections  on  the  principle  of  justice. 

1.  The  South  will  not  compromise. 

2.  The  settlement  must  remove  the  cause  of  the 
discontent. 

B.  But  can  this  be  done  ?  —  Yes ;  but  not  by  the 
South :    the  North  must  do  it. 

1.  The  North  must  concede  to  the  South  an  equal 
right  in  the  territories  acquired  by  means  of 
the  Mexican  War ; 

2.  The  North  must  do  her  duty  by  fulfilling  stip- 
ulations about  fugitive  slaves ; 

3.  The  North  must  cease  its  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question;  and 

1  A  modified  form  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso. 


398  Making  the  Plea 

4.  The  North  will  have  to  restore  the  old  equilib- 
rium in  the  government  between  the  two  sec- 
tions. 

Conclusion 

I.  But  will  the  North  agree  to  this  ? 

A.   She  cannot  refuse  unless  her  love  of  power  and 
aggrandizement  is  greater  than  her  love  for  the 
Union. 
II.  The  responsibility  for  saving  the  Union  rests  on  the 
North  and  not  on  the  South. 

III.  If  the  North  refuses  to  settle  this  question  on  the  basis 
of  justice  and  duty,  then  let  the  two  sections  separate 
and  depart  in  peace ;   or 

IV.  If  the  North  is  unwilling  that  the  South  should  depart 
in  peace,  let  it  say  so,  in  order  that  the  South  may 
know  how  to  act  when  the  question  is  reduced  to  one 
of  submission  or  resistance. 

V.  I  have  now  done  my  duty  toward  preserving  the  Union ; 
and,  whatever  may  come,  I  am  now  free  from  respon- 
sibility. 

From  this  mere  outline  of  Calhoun's  speech,  it  will  be  noted 
how  he  advanced  point  by  pbint  irresistibly  to  his  conclu- 
sion, and  yet  how  he  concealed  completely,  until  the  very  end, 
just  what  the  nature  of  his  own  recommendation  was  to  be. 
No  better  illustration  can  be  found  anywhere  of  the  strategy 
of  a  concealed  objective. 

Strategy  of  Withholding  Reserves.  —  The  tenth  and 
last  common  form  of  strategy  is  that  of  withholding  reserves. 
This  strategy  is  like  that  of  a  military  commander  who 
refuses,  at  first,  to  reveal  his  full  strength,  thereby  inspiring 
his  enemy  with  overconfidence,  and  leading  him  on  to  an 


Strategy  399 

attack  in  which  he  is  doomed  to  be  crushed  by  the  over- 
whelming forces  of  his  adversary  that  have  been  held  in 
reserve  to  accomplish  that  express  purpose. 

This  strategy,  as  it  is  employed  in  debate,  is  best  suited 
to  the  Affirmative;  although,  in  certain  cases,  when  the 
Negative  offers  a  substitute  proposal,  it  may  be  used  with 
less  advantage  by  the  Negative  also. 

In  order  to  use  this  strategy,  a  debater  must,  at  first,  omit 
the  proof  of  some  one  of  the  vital  issues  under  his  proposition ; 
and,  thereby,  lead  his  opponent  to  challenge  him  to  produce 
this  proof,  and  taunt  him  with  inability  to  produce  it,  and 
finally  say  that  such  proof  cannot  be  produced,  and  that, 
therefore,  he  has  lost  his  case.  When,  by  this  means,  atten- 
tion has  been  drawn  dramatically  to  this  phase  of  the  case, 
and  when  the  Affirmative  comes  on  for  the  last  speech  in  the 
debate,  it,  then,  expresses  surprise  that  so  much  has  been 
made  of  this  matter,  inasmuch  as  it  had  thought  this  point 
too  obvious  to  require  proof ;  but,  in  answer  to  the  repeated 
challenges  of  its  adversary,  it  will  undertake  to  prove  this 
point  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  With  such  an 
Introduction,  the  Affirmative  then  proceeds  to  cover  this 
point  with  a  perfect  avalanche  of  proof,  which  its  opponent 
has  no  opportunity  to  refute. 

An  illustration  of  the  use  of  this  strategy  may  be  found 
in  the  following  method  of  presenting  the  Affirmative's 
case  on  the  proposition  :  That  the  United  States  should  adopt 
a  policy  of  forcing  immigrants  from  agricultural  communities 
to  settle  on  farms  in  this  country. 

The  Affirmative  might  present  its  case  on  this  proposition 
by  showing  at  first : 

I.   That  the  farms  in  America  are  in  dire  need  of  laborers 
who  were  qualified  to  develop  their  resources ;  for 


400  Making  the  Plea 

A.  In  many  sections,  farms  are  being  abandoned  alto- 
gether by  the  natives ;  and 

B.  In  many  other  sections,  farms  are  not  being  devel- 
oped to  their  full  capacity ;  because 

1.  Farm  laborers  cannot  possibly  be  secured;  and 
II.  That  immigrants  now  are  becoming  a  menace  to  the 
country;  because 

A.  They  are  settling  in  big  cities ;  and 

B.  There,  they  become  a  menace  to  the  public  health 
and  morals  by  being  huddled  together  in  unsani- 
tary tenements ;  and 

C.  There,  they  become  victims  of  unscrupulous  employ- 
ers and  popular  demagogues ;  and 

Z).  There,  they  never  become  Americanized;   because 

1.   They  live  in  segregated  foreign  settlements ;  and 

E.  There,  they  are  able  to  organize  conspiracies  against 

our  form  of  government ;   and 

III.   That  by  placing  these  agricultural  immigrants  on  the 

farms,  all  these  evils  would  be  remedied ;  for 

A.  Abandoned  farms  would  be  reclaimed; 

B.  Occupied  farms  could  be  worked  to  their  full  ca- 
pacity ; 

C.  Public  health  and  morals  in  the  big  cities  would  be 
improved ; 

D.  Many  immigrants  would  be  rescued  from  the 
fraudulent  schemes  of  unscrupulous  employers  and 
popular  demagogues ; 

E.  Foreign  settlements  in  the  cities  would  be  reduced ; 
and 

F.  Conspiracies  against  the  government  would  be  made 
more  difficult  to  organize. 

In  this  first  presentation  of  the  Affirmative's  case,  it  is 
obvious  that  no  proof  has  been  offered  to  show  that  the 


Strategy  401 

scheme  would  be  practical ;  that  immigrants  could  be  forced 
to  settle  on  the  farms;  and  so  the  Negative  would  be  in- 
clined to  admit  all  that  the  Affirmative  has  said ;  but  chal- 
lenge the  Affirmative  to  show  how  the  scheme  was  to  be 
carried  out,  and  taunt  the  Affirmative  with  being  unable 
to  produce  a  practical  working-scheme,  and  finally  say  that 
this  is  impossible,  and  that  the  Affirmative,  therefore,  has 
failed  to  establish  its  case. 

•In  reply  to  such  a  challenge,  the  Affirmative,  in  its  last 
speech  when  the  Negative  has  no  opportunity  for  refutation, 
might  then  outline  some  plausible  scheme  to  accomplish 
this  purpose,  and  thereby  crush  the  whole  case  of  its  ad- 
versary. 

This  kind  of  strategy  is  usually  regarded  as  the  meanest 
type  of  strategy  that  a  debater  may  use ;  but  no  strategy, 
nevertheless,  is  more  commonly  used ;  and  no  strategy  has 
been  responsible  for  more  victories  that  are  entirely  un- 
expected. 

To  meet  this  strategy,  the  Negative  has  no  recourse, 
but  to  point  out  plainly  to  an  audience  that  its  challenges 
have  not  been  answered  and  will  not  be  answered,  until 
all  further  opportunity  for  discussion  on  the  part  of  the 
Negative  is  gone.  Under  such  circumstances,  therefore, 
the  Negative  asks  the  audience,  either  not  to  consider  the 
reply  that  is  made,  or  to  withhold  their  judgment  until  an 
opportunity  for  refutation  is  provided  for  the  Negative. 

Summary  of  the  Subject  of  Strategy.  —  When  a  student 
of  debate  has  become  proficient  in  the  practice  of  his  art,  he 
may  find  many  other  different  kinds  of  strategy  that  can  be 
used  against  him,  or  for  him,  besides  those  enumerated  here ; 
but,  in  any  case,  until  he  has  learned,  both  how  to  use,  and 
how  to  overcome,  each  of  these  ten  common  kinds  of  strategy, 


402  Making  the  Plea 

he  is  ill  equipped  to  meet  opponents  whom  some  day  he  will 
be  called  upon  to  face.  Every  debater  should  be  able, 
therefore,  to  employ  the  strategy  of  direct  and  overwhelming 
assault ;  of  taking  over  the  enemy's  positions ;  of  scattering 
the  enemy's  forces ;  of  retreat ;  of  skirmishing ;  of  drawing 
the  enemy's  fire ;  of  bottling-up  the  enemy ;  of  evading  traps ; 
of  concealed  objective ;  and  of  withholding  reserves. 

Conclusion.  —  The  use  of  strategy  in  debate  represents  the 
very  highest  point  of  accomplishment  that  may  be  reached 
in  the  debater's  art.  Success  in  debate,  however,  though 
sometimes  it  depends  on  strategy,  seldom  depends  on  strategy 
alone ;  for  strategy  is  merely  the  culminating  process  of  all 
the  more  fundamental  processes  involved  in  proof,  in  build- 
ing the  case,  and  in  applying  principles  of  conviction,  per- 
suasion, and  speech-composition. 

The  more  one  studies  the  art  of  debate,  the  more  one  feels 
that  it  is  an  art  of  the  most  composite  nature,  demanding  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  principles  derived  from  a  great 
variety  of  sources  —  from  the  basic  sciences  of  law,  logic, 
and  psychology,  and  from  the  contributory  arts  of  rhetoric 
and  oratory ;  and  the  more  one  feels,  also,  that  it  is  an  art  in 
which  skill  must  be  developed,  not  in  any  one  of  its  parts 
alone,  but  in  each  and  all  alike. 

The  one  concluding  caution  that  must  be  left,  therefore, 
with  every  student  of  this  subject  is  that  he  must  not  aspire 
to  become  a  great  debater  overnight;  but  must  expect, 
rather,  to  acquire  proficiency,  only  through  patient,  per- 
severing, painstaking  practice  on  detail  after  detail,  with 
reverse  after  reverse,  but  always  learning  from  his  mis- 
takes, until,  at  last,  he  is  able  to  maintain  his  views  of  right 
and  wrong,  or  truth  and  falsehood,  against  all  antagonists 
who  are  likely  to  oppose  him. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 

Suggested  Course  of  Study 
{References  are  to  pages) 

The  following  course  of  study  consists  of  ninety  exercises, 
arranged  for  school  or  college  classes  numbering  sixteen  students 
and  meeting  three  times  per  week  throughout  an  academic 
year  of  thirty  weeks. 

This  course  is  broken  at  convenient  intervals  for  written  hour 
examinations ;  and  the  break  between  semesters,  for  those 
whose  school  terms  are  arranged  on  this  basis,  is  clearly  marked. 

The  course  is  also  so  arranged  that,  if  the  teacher  does  not 
wish  to  adopt  it  as  a  whole,  he  may  readily  find  appropriate 
exercises  for  selected  chapters  under  the  titles  of  the  chapters 
as  they  are  inserted  in  the  outline. 

All  assignments  in  this  outline  that  are  printed  in  italics  are 
intended  to  be  written  exercises  prepared  outside  the  class  and 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  instructor  at  the  time  the  class  meets. 

The  written  quizzes  mentioned  in  the  outline  are  intended  to 
be  five-minute  quizzes  involving  not  more  than  one  or  two  ques- 
tions. 

The  informal  debates  are  discussions  on  subjects  taken  from 
current  events  as  they  are  treated  in  newspapers  or  magazines 
of  the  passing  week  or  month.  They  should  be  led  by  one  student 
of  the  class  against  the  instructor  and  all  the  rest  of  the  class. 
For  these  debates  each  student  should  be  ready  to  uphold  some 
proposition  of  his  own  choice,  on  which  he  assumes  a  burden  of 
proof.  Each  student  on  the  occasion  for  these  debates  should 
hand  in  a  proposition  in  writing  with  a  series  of  main  heads 
under  it  that  constitute  the  outline  of  a  speech  he  is  prepared 
to  give. 

403 


404  Appendix  A 

The  formal  debates  are  discussions  in  which  two  students  de- 
bate each  other  under  strict  time  limitations  for  both  their  main 
speeches  and  their  rebuttals,  and  for  which  both  prepare  care- 
fully by  drawing  full  briefs  and  by  taking  special  pains  with 
the  organization  and  expression  of  their  thoughts  in  their 
speeches.  These  debates  should  generally  be  followed  by  in- 
formal debates  on  the  subject  under  discussion,  in  which  all 
members  of  the  class  should  be  expected  to  participate.  This 
informal  debating  may  be  prompted  by  asking  members  of  the 
class  to  tell  from  the  platform  which  of  the  debaters  was  right 
and  why. 

Outline 

The  Nature  of  Debate 
Exercise  1. 

A.  Announcements. 

B.  Class  discussion  led  by  instructor  to  develop  subject  of 
The  Nature  of  Debate,  1-7. 


Choosing  the  Subject 
Exercise  2. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  The  Nature  of  Debate. 

B.  Review  text,  The  Nature  of  Debate,  1-7. 

C.  Advance  text,  Choosing  the  Subject,  8-22. 

Exercise  3. 

A.  Review  text,  Choosing  the  Subject,  8-22. 

B.  With  another  member  of  the  class  who  will  be  your  opponent, 
select  and  phrase  a  proposition  of  policy  on  which  you 
both  will  write  an  original  brief  later  in  the  course.  For 
assistance,  consult  Appendix  B. 

C.  Criticize  and  improve,  if  possible,  the  debate  proposi- 
tions in  Appendix  C. 


Course  of  Study  405 

Assembling  the  Proof 
Exercise  4. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Choosing  the  Subject. 

B.  Advance  text,  Assembling  the  Proof,  23-34. 

Exercise  5. 

A.  Review  text,  Assembling  the  Proof,  23-34. 

B.  Bring  to  class  four  chains  of  reasoning  leading  up  to  the  prop- 
osition  chosen  for  your  original  brief,  each  chain  involving 
a  series  of  at  least  five  subheadings. 

Making  the  Speech 
Exercise  6. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Assembling  the  Proof. 

B.  Advance  text,  Making  the  Speech,  35-48. 

Exercise  7. 

A.  Review  text,  Making  the  Speech,  35-48. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  serviceable  bibliography  on  the  proposition 
chosen  for  your  original  brief,  made  according  to  the  sug- 
gestions for  composing  a  bibliography  in  the  chapter  on 
Assembling  the  Proof. 

[examination] 
Exercise  8. 

A.  Written  hour  examination  on : 
The  Nature  of  Debate,  1-7. 
Choosing  the  Subject,  8-22. 
Assembling  the  Proof,  23-34. 
Making  the  Speech,  35-48. 


Evidence 
Exercise  9. 

A.  Advance  text,  Evidence,  49-60. 


406  Appendix  A 

Exercise  10. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Evidence. 

B.  Review  text,  Evidence,  49-60. 

C.  Advance  text,  Evidence,  60-72. 

D.  Bring  to  class  examples  of  the  use  of  each  class  of  evidence 
drawn  from  Appendix  D.  Write  each  piece  of  evidence  in 
the  form  of  a  subhead  to  the  point  it  supports  and  mark 
against  it  the  class  of  evidence  it  represents. 

Exercise  11. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  12. 

A.  Review  text,  Evidence,  60-72. 

B.  Give  an  example  of  the  application  of  each  test  for  evidence 
employed  in  material  presented  in  Appendix  D.  Adopt 
the  following  plan  for  presenting  your  examples: 

(Name  of  Test  Applied) 

1.  Statement  of  evidence  tested,  page.  .  .lines  .  .  . 

2.  Statement  of  fact  used  in  test,  page . . .  lines . . . 

Argument 
Exercise  13. 

A.  Advance  text,  Argument,  73-83. 

Exercise  14. 
A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  15. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Argument. 

B.  Test  each  of  the  arguments  given  in  Appendix  E,  by  the 
rules  and  diagrams  for  the  categorical  syllogism. 

C.  Bring  to  class  two  original  and  valid  categorical  syllogisms, 
one  having  an  affirmative  conclusion  and  the  other  a  negative 
conclusion,  with  a  circular  diagram  for  each  showing  its 
validity. 


Course  of  Study  407 

Exercise  16. 

A.  Advance  text,  Argument,  83-91. 

B.  Bring  to  class  one  example  of  the  disjunctive  syllogism  and 
one  example  of  the  hypothetical  syllogism  taken  from  the 
brief  of  Burke's  Case,  on  228-245. 

Exercise  17. 

A,  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  18. 

A.  Review  text,  Argument,  83-91. 

B.  Select  from  the  brief  of  Burke's  Case,  on  228-245,  and  bring 
to  class,  an  example  of  each  of  the  following  types  of 
argument : 

Generalization 

Classification 

Authority 

Antecedent  Probability 

Sign 

Exercise  19. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Argument. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  weak  argument  from  antecedent  probability 
and  a  weak  argument  from  sign  discovered  by  you  in  any 
text,  newspaper,  magazine,  class  discussion,  or  conversation; 
and  point  out  in  reference  to  each  the  test  it  fails  to  meet 

Exercise  20. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  21. 

A.  Advance  text,  Argument,  91-104. 

B.  Bring  to  class  four  arguments  connected  with  the  subject 
chosen  for  your  original  brief,  representing  respectively : 


408  Appendix  A 

Perfect  Induction 
Imperfect  Induction 
Literal  Analogy 
Figurative  Analogy 

Fallacy 
Exercise  22. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Argument. 

B.  Advance  text,  Fallacy,  105-114. 

Exercise  23. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  24. 

A.  Review  text,  Fallacy,  110-114. 

B.  Advance  text,  Fallacy,  114-119. 

C.  Bring  to  class  two  fallacious  arguments  taken  from  news- 
papers, magazines,  class  discussions,  or  conversations: 
each  argument  illustrating  a  different  type  of  the  general 
fallacy  of  non-sequitur.  Point  out  and  demonstrate  the  exist- 
ence of  the  particular  fallacy  alleged  to  be  involved  in  each 
argument.  This  demonstration  should  be  arranged  as  proof 
in  the  form  of  a  syllogism  expressed  in  heads  and  subheads. 

Exercise  25. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Fallacy. 

B.  Point  out  and  demonstrate  the  existence  of  a  particular 
fallacy  in  reasoning  contained  in  the  selections  given  in 
Appendix  F. 

Exercise  26. 
A.  Informal  debate. 

Refutation 
Exercise  27. 

A.  Advance  text,  Refutation,  120-134. 


Course  of  Study  409 

Exercise  28. 

A.  Review  text,  Refutation,  120-134. 

B.  Bring  to  class  an  example  of  each  of  the  four  special  devices 
for  refutation  with  the  proof  arranged  in  the  form  of  heads 
and  subheads. 

Exercise  29. 

A.  Informal  debate. 


[examination] 
Exercise  30. 

4.  Written  hour  examination  on : 
Evidence,  49-72. 
Argument,  73-104. 
Fallacy,  105-119. 
Refutation,  120-134. 


Defining  the  Terms 
Exercise  31. 

A.   Advance  text,  Defining  the  Terms,  135-145. 

Exercise  32. 

A.  Review  text,  Defining  the  Terms,  135-145. 

B.  Define  by  three  different  methods  one  of  the  terms  in  the  prop- 
osition chosen  for  your  original  brief. 

C.  So  far  as  possible  define  each  of  the  six  methods  of  defi- 
nition by  each  of  the  six  methods. 

Exercise  33. 

A.   Informal  debate. 


Surveying  the  Proof 
Exercise  34. 

A.  Advance  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  146-165. 


410  Appendix  A 

Exercise  35. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  146-165. 

B.  Advance  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  165-171. 

C.  Bring  to  class  a  diagram  representing  the  first  four  Phases 
of  the  problem  under  the  proposition  chosen  for  your  original 
brief.  Draw  off  from  the  diagram  the  main  points  repre- 
sented in  the  first  four  Phases. 

D.  Be  ready  to  discuss  before  the  class  the  points  drawn  off 
from  the  diagram. 

Exercise  36. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  37. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  150-171. 

B.  Each  student  will  hand  in  a  brief-outline  of  all  the  proof 
necessary  to  establish  his  contention  on  one  of  the  first  four 
Phases  of  his  case  in  connection  with  the  proposition  for  his 
original  brief. 

C.  Be  ready  to  discuss  before  the  class  any  of  the  points 
corresponding  to  the  first  four  Phases  of  the  case. 

Exercise  38. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  150-171. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  diagram  representing  the  first  seven  Phases 
of  the  problem  under  the  proposition  chosen  for  your  original 
brief.  Draw  off  from  the  diagram  the  main  points  repre- 
sented in  the  first  seven  Phases. 

C.  Be  ready  to  discuss  the  points  drawn  off  from  the 
diagram. 

Exercise  39. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

Exercise  40. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  150-171. 

B.  Advance  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  171-177. 


Course  of  Study  411 

C.  Each  student  will  hand  in  a  brief- outline  of  all  the  proof 
necessary  to  establish  his  contention  on  one  of  the  Phases 
from  V  to  VII  in  connection  with  the  proposition  for  his 
original  brief. 

D.  Be  ready  to  discuss  before  the  class  any  of  the  points 
corresponding  to  Phases  V  to  VII  in  the  case. 

Exercise  41. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  171-177. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  diagram  representing  the  first  eleven  Phases 
of  the  problem  under  the  proposition  chosen  for  your  original 
brief.  Draw  off  from  this  diagram  the  main  points  rep- 
resented in  the  first  eleven  Phases. 

C.  Be  ready  to  discuss  the  points  drawn  off  from  the  diagram. 

Exercise  42. 

A.   Informal  debate. 

Exercise  43. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  171-177. 

B.  Advance  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  177-184. 

C.  Each  student  will  hand  in  a  brief-outline  of  all  the  proof 
necessary  to  establish  his  contention  on  one  of  the  Phases 
from  VIII  to  XI  in  connection  with  the  proposition  for  his 
original  brief. 

D.  Be  ready  to  discuss  before  the  class  any  of  the  points 
corresponding  to  Phases  VIII  to  XI  in  the  case. 

Exercise  44. 

A.  Review  text,  Surveying  the  Proof,  146-184. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  diagram  representing  all  fifteen  Phases  of 
the  problem  under  the  proposition  chosen  for  your  original 
brief.  Draw  off  from  the  diagram  the  main  points  repre- 
sented in  all  these  fifteen  Phases. 

C.  Be  ready  to  discuss  the  points  drawn  off  from  the  diagram. 


412  Appendix  A 


Exercise  45. 

A.   Informal  debate. 


Note.  —  In  courses  arranged  to  meet  three  times  a  week  on  a 
semester  basis,  the  break  between  the  first  and  second  semesters  will 
come  at  this  point. 

Finding  the  Issues 
Exercise  46. 

A.  Advance  text,  Finding  the  Issues,  185-202. 

Exercise  47. 

A.  Review  text,  Finding  the  Issues,  185-202. 

B.  Make  a  complete  list  of  all  important  points,  in  connection 
with  the  proposition  for  your  original  brief,  arising  out  of: 

A  Study  of  the  Origin  and  History  of  the  Case,  —  and 
A  Study  of  Both  Sides  of  All  Phases  of  the  Question. 

Mark  each  point  that  is  not  to  be  considered  as  an  issue 

with  the  reason  for  its  exclusion. 

Arrange  the  remaining  points  in  heads  and  subheads  as 

main  and  subordinate  issues. 

Exercise  48. 
A.   Informal  debate. 

Drawing  the  Brief 
Exercise  49. 

A.  Advance  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  203-215. 

Exercise  50. 

A.  Review  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  203-215. 

B.  Advance  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  215-218,  228-235. 

C.  Bring  to  class  the  Introduction  to  a  brief  based  on  the  case 
for  government  ownership  and  operation  of  the  railroads 
presented  in  Appendix  G. 

Exercise  51. 

A.   Informal  debate. 


Course  of  Study  413 

Exercise  52. 

A.  Review  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  215-218. 

B.  Advance  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  218-228,  235-245. 

Exercise  53. 

A.  Review  text,  Drawing  the  Brief,  203-228. 

B.  Bring  to  class  a  complete  brief  of  the  case  for  government 
ownership  and  operation  of  the  railroads  as  presented  in  the 
speeches  given  in  Appendix  G. 

Exercise  54. 

A.  Informal  debate. 

[examination] 
Exercise  55. 

A.  Written  hour  examination  on : 

Defining  the  Terms,  135-145. 
Surveying  the  Proof,  146-184. 
Finding  the  Issues,  185-202. 
Drawing  the  Brief,  203-245. 

B.  Announcement  of  schedule  for  formal  debates  throughout 
the  remainder  of  the  course,  with  schedule  also  for  prelimi- 
nary exercises  in  making  Phase  diagrams,  first  drafts  of 
proof  under  the  Phases,  and  full  briefs.  See  specimen 
schedule  in  Appendix  H. 

[formal  debates] 

Exercise  56  through  Exercise  63. 

A.  Eight  formal  two-speaker  debates  on  propositions  chosen 
for  original  briefs,  with  full  briefs  due  from  each  of  the  speak- 
ers at  the  time  of  the  debate. 

Conviction 
Exercise  64. 

A.   Advance  text,  Conviction,  246-268. 


414  Appendix  A 

Exercise  65. 

A.  Written  quiz  on  Conviction. 

B.  Review  text,  Conviction,  246-268. 

C.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event, 
illustrating  the  methods  of  emphasis  by : 

Iteration,  —  and 
Suspense. 

Exercise  66. 

A.  Ninth  formal  debate. 

Persuasion 
Exercise  67. 

A.  Advance  text,  Persuasion,  269-293. 

Exercise  68. 

A.  Review  text,  Persuasion,  269-293. 

B.  Advance  text,  Persuasion,  293-303. 

C.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event,  illus- 
trating the  four  methods  of  persuasion  by  direct  discourse. 

Exercise  69. 
A.  Tenth  formal  debate. 

Exercise  70. 

A.  Review  text,  Persuasion,  293-303. 

B.  Advance  text,  Persuasion,  303-321. 

C.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
shoA  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event, 
illustrating  the  methods  of  persuasion  by  concreteness  and 
by  a  definite  appeal  to  one  of  the  motives  mentioned 
in  the  text. 


Course  of  Study  415 

Speech-Composition 

Exercise  71. 
A.  Advance  text,  Speech-Composition,  322-354. 

Exercise  72. 
A.   Eleventh  formal  debate. 

Exercise  73. 

A.  Review  text,  Speech-Composition ,  329-354. 

B.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event,  illus- 
trating the  personal  and  expository  types  of  Introduction. 

Exercise  74. 

A.  Advance  text,  Speech-Composition,  354-364. 

B.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event,  illus- 
trating both  the  summarizing  and  the  personal  types  of 
Conclusion. 

Exercise  75. 

A.  Twelfth  formal  debate. 

Strategy 
Exercise  76. 

A.  Advance  text,  Strategy,  365-402. 

Exercise  77. 

A.  Review  text,  Strategy,  365-384. 

B.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event,  il- 
lustrating the  strategy  of  direct  and  overwhelming  assault 
and  the  strategy  of  scattering  the  enemy's  forces. 

Exercise  78. 

A.  Thirteenth  formal  debate. 


416  Appendix  A 

Exercise  79. 

A.  Review  text,  Strategy,  384-402. 

B.  Prepare,  for  extemporaneous  delivery  before  the  class,  a 
short  argumentative  speech  on  some  current  event,  illus- 
trating the  strategy  of  concealed  objective. 

[formal  debates] 

Exercise  80  through  Exercise  90. 

A.  Eleven  formal  debates,  making  a  total  of  twenty-four  for 
the  course. 


APPENDIX  B 

Debate  Topics 

The  following  list  of  topics  is  given  to  aid  the  debater  in  choos- 
ing satisfactory  subjects  for  debate.  The  suggestions  con- 
tained in  it  are  given  in  topic  form,  rather  than  in  the  form  of 
propositions,  for  two  distinct  purposes :  First,  to  give  the  de- 
bater experience  in  formulating  his  own  propositions ;  and, 
second,  to  make  the  list  more  elastic  and  more  permanent. 

To  aid  the  debater  in  choosing  subjects  that  particularly 
appeal  to  him,  the  topics  are  arranged  in  groups  under  head- 
ings that  indicate  their  general  nature. 

Election  Machinery. 

1.  Control  of  Campaign  Contributions. 

2.  Laws  Establishing  Compulsory  Voting. 

3.  Abolition  of  the  Electoral  College. 

4.  The  System  of  Nomination  by  Primaries. 

5.  Preferential  Balloting. 

6.  The  Short  Ballot. 

7.  Uniform  Suffrage  Requirements. 

8.  The  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

9.  The  System  of  Recall. 

10.   Non-Partisan  Municipal  Elections. 

Federal  Government. 

1.  Adoption  of  a  Responsible  Cabinet  System. 

2.  Restriction  of  Lobbying  in  Congress. 

3.  Change  in  the  Date  of  Presidential  Inaugurations. 

4.  Necessary  Changes  in  the  Diplomatic  or  Consular  Service. 

417 


418  Appendix  B 

State  Government. 

1.  Budget  System  of  Appropriations. 

2.  Government  by  Commissions. 

3.  Sessions  of  the  Legislature. 

4.  Size  of  the  Lower  House. 

5.  The  Pardoning  Power  of  the  Governor. 

6.  Curbing  the  Representation  of  Huge  Cities. 

7.  State  Police. 

City  Government. 

1.  The  Commission  Form  of  Government. 

2.  The  City  Manager  Form  of  Government. 

3.  Government  Ownership  of  Public  Utilities. 

4.  Contract  System  in  Municipal  Construction  Work. 

5.  Municipal  Markets. 

6.  Municipal  Colleges  and  Universities. 

The  Courts. 

1.  Election  vs.  Appointment  of  Judges. 

2.  Reforms  in  the  Jury  System. 

3.  Judge-Made  Law. 

Systems  of  Taxation. 

1.  Protective  Tariff  Measures. 

2.  The  Income  Tax. 

3.  The  Inheritance  Tax. 

4.  The  Sales  Tax. 

5.  The  Single  Tax. 

6.  The  Method  of  Assessment. 

7.  The  Taxation  of  Church  Property. 

Internal  Improvements. 

1.  Conservation  Policy. 

2.  Water-Power  Development. 

3.  Inland  Water-Way  Development. 


Debate  Topics  419 

4.  Anti-Pork  Barrel  Legislation. 

5.  Farmers'  Aid  Projects. 
Government  Ownership  and  Operation. 

1.  Government  Ownership  and  Operation  of  Railroads. 

2.  Government  Ownership  and  Operation  of  Telegraphs. 

3.  Government    Ownership    and    Operation    of   Merchant 
Marine. 

4.  Government  Ownership  and  Operation  of  Naval  Ship- 
Building  Plants. 

5.  Government  Control  of  the  Coal  Mines. 
Social  Reform. 

1.  Government  Employment  Bureaus. 

2.  Government  Aid  for  Unemployed. 

3.  Minimum  Wage  Laws. 

4.  Workman's  Compensation  Laws. 

5.  Compulsory  Health  Insurance. 

6.  Old- Age  Pensions. 

7.  Preferential  Legislation  for  War  Veterans. 

8.  Prohibition  Enforcement. 

9.  Regulation  of  Prize  Fights. 

10.  Sunday  Blue  Law. 

11.  Uniform  Marriage  and  Divorce  Laws. 

12.  Motion-Picture  Censorship. 

13.  Stage  Censorship. 

14.  Capital  Punishment. 

15.  Prison  Reform. 

16.  Problem  of  Drug  Fiends. 

17.  The  Tipping  System. 
Immigration. 

1.  Illiteracy  among  Immigrants. 

2.  Immigration  from  Southeastern  Europe. 

3.  Japanese  Immigration. 

4.  Schemes  for  Americanization. 

5.  Enforcement  of  Immigration  Laws. 

6.  Exclusion  of  Political  Agitators. 


420  Appendix  B 

Government  of  Outlying  Territories. 

1.  Administration  of  Panama  Canal  Zone 

2.  Disposition  of  the  Philippines. 

Foreign  Relations. 

1.  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

2.  The  Integrity  of  China. 

3.  The  Open-Door  Policy. 

4.  The  Freedom  of  the  Seas. 

5.  Self -Determination. 

6.  International  Cooperation. 

7.  Foreign  Alliances. 

8.  American-British  Relations. 

9.  American-French  Relations. 

10.  American-German  Relations. 

11.  American-Russian  Relations. 

12.  American-Japanese  Relations. 

13.  American-Near  East  Problems. 

14.  American-Far  East  Problems. 

15.  American-Mexican  Problems. 

16.  American-Central  American  Problems. 

The  World  Peace  Movement. 

1.  A  League  of  Nations. 

2.  A  World  Court. 

3.  A  Super-State. 

4.  A  Balance  of  Power. 

5.  Disarmament. 

6.  Military  Training. 

7.  Army  and  Navy  Policies. 

Industrial  Problems. 

1.  Women  in  Industry. 

2.  Children  in  Industry. 

3.  Industrial  Democracy. 

4.  Cooperative  Organizations. 


Debate  Topics  421 

5.  The  Closed  vs.  the  Open  Shop. 

6.  Compulsory  Arbitration. 

7.  Kansas  Industrial  Court. 

8.  The  Power  of  Injunction  to  Prevent  Strikes. 

9.  Unionization  of  Government  Employes. 

10.  Formation  of  a  Labor  Party. 

11.  Anti-Strike  Legislation. 

12.  The  Plumb  Plan. 

13.  Industrial  Detective  Agencies. 

14.  The  Adamson  Law. 

15.  Outlaw  Labor  Unions. 
Education. 

1.  Co-education. 

2.  The  Gary  School  System. 

3.  High-School  Fraternities. 

4.  Free  Textbooks  in  Public  Schools. 

5.  Inadequacy  of  High-School  Preparation  for  College. 

6.  Examination  System  for  Entrance  to  College. 

7.  Prescribed  Courses  in  College. 

8.  Prerequisites  for  Professional  Study. 

9.  The  Four-Quarter  System  vs.  the  Semester  System. 

10.  A  Three-Year  College  Course. 

11.  Regulation  of  Extra-Curriculum  Activities. 

12.  College  Credit  for  Extra-Curriculum  Activities. 

13.  The  Honor  System  in  College  Examinations. 

14.  Professionalism  in  College  Athletics. 


APPENDIX  C 
Propositions  for  Criticism 

The  following  propositions  are  offered  as  material  for  criticism 
in  connection  with  the  study  of  Choosing  the  Subject : 

1.  All  colleges  should  revise  their  admission  requirements 
especially  in  regard  to  the  dead  languages. 

2.  Something  should  be  done  to  relieve  the  unbearable  bur- 
dens inflicted  upon  people  by  the  present  income-tax 
laws. 

3.  The  official  attitude  of  the  United  States  government 
toward  Chinese  and  Japanese  immigration  should  be 
reversed. 

4.  The  refusal  of  the  United  States  government  to  ratify  the 
Treaty  of  Versailles  was  wise. 

5.  The  United  States  should  not  adopt  the  British  system  of 
responsible  cabinet  government. 

The  following  propositions  were  printed  in  The  Literary  Digest 
for  April  1,  1922,  as  the  demands  of  Turkey  to  which  the  Allied 
Powers  must  accede  in  order  to  restore  harmony  in  the  Near 
East:  •        i 

1.  The  pre-war  status  must  be  restored  in  Constantinople 
and  the  Allied  occupation  of  this  city  must  be  imme- 
diately discontinued. 

2.  Smyrna,  as  well  as  other  territories  occupied  by  Greece, 
must  be  unconditionally  restored  to  Turkey. 

3.  No  special  privileges  can  be  granted  to  the  Christian  mi- 
norities in  territory  of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  except 
those  compatible  with  the  Kemalist  pact,  as  formulated 
by  the  National  Assembly.  Furthermore,  the  Allies 
must  refrain  from  any  intervention  in  favor  of  Arme- 
nians. 

422 


Propositions  for  Criticism  423 

4.  The  Allies   must  recognize  all  the  international   treaties 
concluded  by  the  government  of  Angora. 

5.  Complete  independence  must   be  assured  to   Turkey  in 
military,  economic,  and  financial  questions. 

6.  The  autonomous  regime  must  be  set  up  in  Western  Thrace, 
while  Eastern  Thrace  must  be  restored  to  Turkey. 

7.  Turkey  will  have  the  right  to  have  the  army  and  navy  she 
needs  to  protect  herself  from  an  eventual  aggression. 

8.  The  future  status  of  the  straits  will  be  agreed  to  by  Turkey 
and  Russia. 

The  following  partial  propositions  are  taken  from  the  plat- 
form of  the  Foreign  Trade  Council  which  met  in  Cleveland  on 
May  7,  1921 : 

1.  Immediate  creation  of  foreign  trade  financing  corpo- 
rations under  the  provision  of  the  Edge  Act. 

2.  Increasing  of  imports  of  raw  materials  and  of  merchan- 
dise not  detrimental  to  existing  industries  of  the  United 
States. 

3.  Delaying  of  the  disposal  of  government-owned  ships  to 
private  owners  until  more  favorable  prices  can  be  ob- 
tained. 

4.  Enactment  of  the  maritime  insurance  law. 

5.  Adoption  of  a  uniform  letter  of  credit  as  urged  by  the 
American  Bankers'  Association. 

6.  Enactment  by  Congress  of  a  bargaining  tariff. 

7.  Reorganization  of  the  foreign  service  of  the  United  States 
to  provide  unified  supervision. 

8.  Creation  of  a  foreign  service  trade  training  academy  pat- 
terned after  West  Point. 

9.  Increased  congressional  appropriation  for  the  bureau  of 
foreign  and  domestic  commerce  and  a  bureau  of  standards 
of  the  department  of  commerce. 

10.  Enactment  of  the  China  trades  act  to  permit  the  forma- 
tion of  American  companies  to  trade  in  China  on  a  plan 
of  tax  equality  with  foreign  competitors. 


424  Appendix  C 

11.  Removal  of  income  tax  upon  American  citizens  living 
abroad,  and  deriving  their  income  from  abroad. 

12.  Taxation   of  foreign  postal   communication   and   inter- 
national parcels  post. 

13.  Creation  of  congressional  standing  committees  of  foreign 
commerce. 

14.  Development  of  national  waterways. 

15.  Expansion  of  international  telegraphic  communication 
under  American  control  and  operation. 

16.  Approval  of  the  policy  of  the  State  Department  regard- 
ing mandates. 


APPENDIX  D 

Material  for  the  Study  of  Evidence 

The  following  excerpts  are  taken  from  the  speeches  delivered 
by  the  counsel  for  and  against  Louis  Wagner,  put  on  trial  for 
his  life,  on  a  charge  of  murdering  Karen  and  Anethe  Christen- 
sen,  at  the  Isles  of  Shoals,  off  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  in 
1873. 

The  theory  of  the  prosecution  was  that  Wagner,  a  fisherman, 
rowed  in  a  small  boat  from  Portsmouth  to  the  Shoals  on  the 
night  of  the  murder,  when  he  knew  the  two  women  were  alone 
on  the  island,  called  Smutty  Nose  Island  ;  that  he  murdered  the 
two  women,  robbed  them  of  their  savings,  and  then  returned  be- 
fore morning  to  his  boarding  house  at  Mrs.  Johnson's,  pretend- 
ing that  he  had  got  drunk  and  was  delayed  until  late  in  getting 
home. 

First  Excerpt  —  from  the  Speech  for  the  Defense 

The  first  proofs  I  direct  your  attention  to  are  concerning 
the  declarations  of  Wagner  before  the  homicide,  coming 
from  Hontvet,  Inglebretzen,  Lee,  and  Charlie  Johnson. 

Mr.  Inglebretzen  tells  you  that  Wagner  told  him  three 
months  before  the  murder,  fixing  the  time  first  about  three  5 
weeks  before  Christmas,  and  then  sizing  it  down  to  the  20th 
of  December,  "  that  he  was  going  to  have  money  if  he  had 
to  murder  for  it."  He  does  not  stop  there.  He  does  not 
give  you  that  simple  general  statement  that  he  is  going  to 
have  money  if  he  has  to  murder  for  it  —  that  is  not  quite  10 
enough  for  him,  but  he  goes  and  tells  you  he  was  going  to 
have  it  in  three  months.  And  you  will  notice,  gentlemen, 
that  he  fixes  the  time  when  the  conversation  took  place  a 
very  little  less  than  three  months  .before  the  homicide,  evi- 

425 


426  Appendix  D 

dently  intending  to  have  you  believe  it  was  in  the  general  15 
form  that  some  make  it,  but  he  wants  it  minute,  he  wants 
to  connect  it  with  this  transaction  if  possible,  and,  with  no 
reason  given  or  to  be  given,  he  puts  it  December  20. 

Now  Mr.  Lee  comes  along  and  truthfully  or  under  the 
guiding  hand  of  somebody  undertakes  to  add  more  to  it  20 
and  says  that  he  told  him  that  if  he  could  get  a  boat  to  go 
down  to  the  Shoals,  he  could  get  money  enough  down  there. 
It  was  another  conversation,  as  he  says,  but  the  design  was 
to  point  to  this  transaction  which  took  place  within  three 
months.  25 

Charlie  Johnson  says  that  within  a  week  or  ten  days  of 
this  transaction  he  told  him  he  was  going  to  have  money  if 
he  had  to  murder  for  it,  and  Charlie  wants  to  make  certain 
of  this  and  so  he  says  Wagner  repeated  it  a  number  of  dif- 
ferent times  to  him  and  told  it  in  his  father's  bar-room  30 
in  the  presence  of  Kenniston,  but  you  will  remember  that 
Kenniston  does  not  remember  any  such  thing. 

Now  what  is  this  kind  of  stuff  in  for  ?  Does  the  govern- 
ment officer  intend  to  argue  that  Wagner  on  the  20th  of  De- 
cember intended  to  murder  these  women,  or  that  at  the  time  35 
Lee  puts  it  he  intended  to  go  down  to  the  Shoals  and  rob 
these  women,  or  that  he  intended  this  homicide  and  told 
Charlie  Johnson  repeatedly  of  it  and  declared  it  openly  in 
the  bar-room?  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  went  around 
proclaiming  he  was  going  to  commit  this  murder  ?  If  this  40 
was  true,  he  is  a  fit  subject  for  the  insane  hospital,  and  if 
you  believe  their  statements  you  must  find  him  not  guilty 
by  reason  of  insanity.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  man  going 
around  and  making  proclamation  of  his  intention  to  commit 
such  a  crime?  Gentlemen,  it  is  pure  fabrication  by  these 45 
ignorant  men,  supposing  it  will  convict  the  prisoner.  Hont- 
vet,  and  Inglebretzen,  and  Charlie  Johnson  are  bound  to 
convict  him.  Their  imprecations  upon  him  filled  the  air  as 
he  was  led  from  prison  in  Portsmouth  and  their  missiles  were 
hurled  at  him  to  kill  him.  50 


Study  of  Evidence  427 

Again,  witness  after  witness  was  asked  "if  Wagner  ever 
said  anything  to  them  about  money."  Very  few  of  them 
answer  in  the  affirmative.  They  want  to  show  him  in 
straitened  circumstances;  to  get  up  some  moving  cause 
to  commit  this  great  offense.  And  what  do  they  do? 55 
They  show  that  on  the  6th  of  March  he  owed  only  $12  — 
and  had  always  paid  his  board  promptly.  Keep  this  in 
mind,  gentlemen,  he  owed  only  twelve  dollars  —  no  one 
pressing  for  that  —  he  was  never  even  asked  for  it.  Is 
that,  pray  tell  me,  gentlemen,  the  strong  circumstance  to  60 
support  the  motive  for  the  commission  of  this  crime?  It 
is  all  there  is.  It  is  all  they  have.  Does  this  show  such  a 
straitened  condition  that  he  voluntarily  cries  out  upon 
the  street  that  he  must  have  money,  if  he  has  to  murder 
for  it  ?  .  65 

The  next  declarations  are  alleged  to  have  come  from  him 
on  the  morning  after  the  murder.  It  is  the  declaration  said 
to  have  been  made  to  Mrs.  Johnson,  Mr.  Johnson,  and  Mary 
Johnson.  And  what  would  they  have  you  believe  that 
they  were  ?  They  say  he  came  home  in  the  morning  in  70 
broad  daylight  marching  through  the  streets  of  Portsmouth 
to  his  boarding  place,  and,  after  removing  some  of  his  clothes 
and  washing  himself,  took  breakfast,  and  then  told  Mrs. 
Johnson  he  never  felt  so  bad  in  his  life  and  that  he  felt  as  if 
somebody  was  after  him ;  that  he  told  this  in  the  open  bar-  75 
room,  and,  to  make  the  thing  stronger,  that  he  sought  out 
Mary  Johnson  and  told  her  that  he  had  got  himself  into 
difficulty  and  he  felt  as  if  he  were  going  to  be  taken.  This 
is  the  substance  of  the  story  as  these  witnesses  give  it  to  you. 

Now  what  does  he  say  about  it  ?  He  tells  you  where  he  80 
had  been  the  night  before.  That  he  had  been  drinking  so 
freely  as  to  intoxicate  him  and  produce  vomiting.  Had 
been  subject  to  cold  and  without  sleep,  and  that  in  this  con- 
dition he  said,  "  I  feel  awful  bad,  as  when  something  is  going 
to  happen  to  me."  Suffering  from  this  debauch  he  says  his  85 
head  felt  bad,  and  he  hardly  knew  how  to  describe  his  feel- 


428  Appendix  D 

ings.  After  committing  such  an  atrocious  crime  as  this, 
would  he  have  come  directly  from  the  scene  and  told  it  to 
Mrs.  Johnson,  Mary  Johnson,  and  the  father  in  his  place  of 
business,  publicly  before  all  who  were  there  ?  90 

Still  the  meagerness  of  the  identification  presses  upon  and 
haunts  the  prosecution,  and  now  they  go  to  Boston  to  see 
what  he  said  there.  From  the  boarding  mistress  they  say 
he  went  to  the  little  Dutchman's  shoe  shop.  In  that  place 
there  were  certain  occurrences  and  conversations,  but  the  95 
little  Dutchman  says  that  he  remembers  only  two  or  three 
of  them.  All  the  others  he  forgets,  some  few  of  them  he 
denies ;  but  he  says  Wagner  cast  off  his  old  shoe  and  put  on 
the  new  one,  and  they  would  have  us  believe,  not  content 
with  proclaiming  for -three  months  that  he  was  going  to  com- 100 
mit  the  deed,  and  not  content  with  confessing  first  to  Mrs. 
Johnson,  then  to  her  husband  in  the  bar-room,  and  then  to 
Mary,  he  now  goes  to  Boston  and  confesses  it  in  the  shoe 
store  of  this  gentleman,  the  same  thing  in  different  form  of 
expression,  by  saying,  "  I  have  seen  women  as  still  as  that  105 
shoe."  They  would  have  us  believe  that  he  was  fleeing 
from  justice  and  yet  talking  in  this  manner.  If  he  was 
guilty,  could  there  be  greater  folly  in  a  man ;  if  innocent, 
why  should  he  say  it? 

He  tells  you  what  he  did  say,  and  how  he  came  to  say  it.  110 
He  says  the  shoemaker  was  advising  him  to  marry  and  de- 
tails the  conversation,  and  he  says,  "  I  then  told  him  I  did 
not  care  about  girls,  that  I  loved  a  girl  once  at  home  six 
years  ago,  and  that  in  two  years'  time  I  had  heard  no  news 
from  her,  that  I  thought  she  was  dead ;  and  by  that  time  1 115 
was  trying  my  boots  on/' 

Now  here  was  a  Dutchman  in  conversation  with  a  Prus- 
sian. Both  using  imperfect  English  and  liable  to  misunder- 
stand and  misinterpret,  to  say  nothing  of  the  danger  and 
the  liability  of  misrecollection.  120 

After  Wagner  was  arrested  they  took  from  him  certain 
articles  in  his  pocket.     You  will  recollect,  in  the  opening  by 


Study  of  Evidence  429 

the  State's  counsel  we  were  told  that  a  very  important 
piece  of  evidence  would  occur  in  the  article  of  a  button. 
That  it  was  so  connected  as  to  establish  the  prisoner's  guilt.  125 
The  importance  of  it  was  stated  and  restated  and  with  such 
wonderful  gravity  that  we  really  feared  we  had  come  upon 
some  unfortunate  and  mysterious  circumstance.  In  the 
course  of  the  trial  various  mysterious  packages  were  spread 
out  on  the  table  and  with  no  inconsiderable  display  wrappers  130 
were  removed  and  strings  untied  and  there  appeared  among 
other  things  buttons ;  buttons  not  found  on  Wagner  but 
similar  to  something  we  could  hardly  tell  what.  These 
remained  upon  the  table  until  the  close  of  the  government 
case,  when  the  attorney  offers  them ;  upon  a  suggestion  135 
made  by  us  that  they  were  not  admissible  and  do  not  appear 
to  be  connected  with  the  case,  the  court  at  once  excluded 
them ;  thereupon,  you  will  recollect  that  the  learned  so- 
licitor for  the  county  coolly  arose  in  his  place  and  declared 
to  the  court  his  own  belief  that  they  were  inadmissible.  140 
Making  all  the  previous  parade  and  all  his  previous  solemn 
declamation,  and  then  endeavoring  to  introduce  them  when 
he  believed  them  inadmissible. 

The  government  have  committed  such  portions  of  Wag- 
ner's clothing  as  they  saw  fit  to  the  examination  of  a  gentle-  145 
man  from  Boston  with  a  view  to  show  that  upon  his  cloth- 
ing there  appear  stains  of  human  blood.     I  have  a  word  to 
say  first  concerning  this  theory  or  proposition  that  human 
blood  can  be  distinguished  from  that  of  all  other  beings. 
It  is  an  idea  that  has  been  entertained  by  some  persons  for  150 
some  considerable  period  of  time,  and  some  worked  them- 
selves into  considerable  confidence  in  the  practicability  of 
their  system  of  examination;    but  others  and  many  others 
equally  learned  regard  it  as  unsafe  and  uncertain,  and  in 
many  cases  they  say  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  dis- 155 
tinguish  between  human  blood  and  that  of  some  animals. 
They  say  that  when  blood  is  taken  fresh  from  the  veins  of 
a  person  and  fresh  from  that  of  some  animals,  it  may  be 


430  Appendix  D 

determined  by  a  very  careful,  minute  examination  and  by 
a  system  of  measurements.  But  after  it  has  been  taken  160 
from  its  natural  element  —  taken  and  separated  from  the 
serum  in  which  it  flowed  —  taken  out  of  its  natural  surround- 
ings and  put  into  unnatural  combinations,  and  also  sub- 
jected in  the  transition  to  the  action  of  elements  it  was  not 
open  or  subject  to  in  the  veins,  the  experiment  is  entirely  165 
unsatisfactory. 

The  government  have  shown  you  how  much  of  human 
blood  they  say  was  found  upon  the  clothes.  We  may  safely 
assume  there  was  no  more ;  at  any  rate  there  was  no  proof 
there  was  any  more.  In  the  first  place  do  you  find  there  170 
was  any  more  or  even  as  much  as  you  would  expect  to  find 
on  the  fishing  clothes  of  a  man  employed  as  he  was  ?  Isn't 
it  quite  clear  there  was  indeed  less  than  would  ordinarily 
be  found  upon  the  fisherman's  clothes?  Such  persons  are 
constantly  liable  to  injure  their  hands  with  the  hooks  they  175 
use,  and  in  rowing  and  in  drawing  in  lines.  The  fact  is  so 
apparent  that  there  is  no  unusual  amount  of  human  blood 
upon  these  clothes  that  I  pass  it  without  detailing  the  evi- 
dence concerning  it. 

Now  I  come  in  this  connection  to  another  piece  of  evi-  180 
dence  that  the  government  have  introduced,  and  this  re- 
lates to  a  white  shirt.     This  article  of  clothing  has  been 
made  to  play  a  conspicuous  part  in  this  case  and  it  was 
regarded  as  one  of  the  strong  evidences  of  the  prisoner's 
guilt,  not  so  much  because  blood  was  found  upon  it  as  the  185 
fact  of  secreting  it.     It  was  said  it  was  his  and  he  secreted 
it,  and  they  drew  the  inference  that  he  committed  the  mur- 
der.    They  say  that  they  found  it  in  the  ash-heap  and  that 
it  was  hid  there  because  of  the  blood  stains.     First  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  shirt.     This  evidence  comes  from  Mary,  190 
who  testifies  from  a  recollection  of  it  as  she  saw  it  when 
washing  and  ironing  it  upon  some  previous  occasion,  and 
she  testified  to  some  matters  about  the  collar.     When  cross- 
examined  by  my  colleague  these  matters  began  to  fade  out, 


Study  of  Evidence  431 

and  then  she  comes  up  with  a  new  statement  —  new  to  the  195 
government  officers  as  well  as  to  everybody  else,  and  that 
is  that  she  saw  him  pass  out  with  a  bunch  under  his  coat  on 
the  side  under  his  arm  the  morning  after  the  murder,  as  he 
was  going  through  the  kitchen.  Now  this  fact  she  did  not 
testify  to  in  the  direct  examination,  and  you  may  well  con-  200 
elude  they  were  ignorant  of  it.  She  puts  it  in  to  work 
against  the  prisoner  and  to  fill  up  the  gap  of  her  other  van- 
ished reasons  for  knowing  the  shirt.  It  shows  very  clearly 
the  temper  of  the  witness  toward  the  prisoner. 

We  are  sure  so  far  as  we  have  any  information  on  the  205 
subject,  that  the  person  who  discovered  the  shirt  in  the  ash- 
heap  is  not  here  nor  his  name  mentioned.  Mary  was  told 
that  it  had  been  discovered ;  and  Entwissle  was  told  that 
it  had  been  discovered.  Who  made  the  discovery,  when, 
and  under  what  circumstances,  I  think  you  and  I  have  yet  210 
to  learn.  I  care  nothing  about  this,  however,  not  a  single 
straw.  When  the  prisoner  was  on  the  stand  and  the  shirt 
was  put  into  his  hands,  you  saw  his  examination  and  heard 
his  testimony  about  it.  You  heard  his  denial  of  it  and  the 
reasons  he  gave  for  it  and  saw  the  trial  of  it  upon  his  arms  215 
and  wrists,  and  you  tried  it  yourself,  and  if  what  you  saw 
and  heard  and  did,  does  not  satisfy  you  it  is  not  his  shirt, 
no  amount  of  evidence  would.  Why,  look  at  another  fact 
standing  out  according  to  their  testimony ;  this  shirt  had  a 
single  stain  of  blood  at  the  lower  end  of  the  bosom,  and  only  220 
this  stain ;  nothing  upon  the  sleeves  or  shoulders  or  any 
other  part :  the  prisoner  goes  up  into  his  chamber,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  the  government  witnesses,  and  lays  off 
his  blue  frock,  his  outside  garment,  the  one  they  have  here 
and  leaves  it  there,  with  all  the  blood  they  now  find  upon  it,  225 
but,  as  they  would  have  us  believe,  stealthily  goes  down  to 
the  ash-heap  in  the  back-yard  and  buries  a  shirt  with  a 
single  stain  upon  it.  Leaves  the  outside  garment,  which,  if 
he  committed  the  deed,  he  might  well  expect  was  covered 
with  blood,  and  hides  a  shirt  with  a  single  stain.     Such  a  230 


432  Appendix  D 

story  is  preposterous.  Again,  is  it  not  a  little  difficult  to 
see  how  the  spot  got  upon  the  lower  part  of  the  bosom  of 
the  shirt  when  he  had  on  over  it  a  colored  shirt,  a  vest,  a 
jumper  or  knit  jacket,  and  a  blue  frock?  And  the  shirt 
was  hid  where  ?  Why,  in  the  ash-heap  back  of  his  own  235 
house.  There  can  be  no  question  the  shirt  was  not  his  nor 
secreted  by  him. 

There  is  one  other  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  prisoner 
relied  upon  by  the  government,  and  that  relates  to  the  pen- 
cil it  seems  a  young  man  found  two  days  after  the  murder,  240 
on  Friday,  in  the  entry  of  the  house  where  the  murder  had 
been  committed.  The  pencil  was  a  common  wooden  pen- 
cil. The  jury  of  inquest  had  been  there  the  day  before,  be- 
sides the  many  other  visitors,  and  none  saw  this  pencil. 
Levi  Mason  is  called.  He  says  he  saw  Wagner  in  March  245 
last  have  such  a  pencil.  Says  he  had  it  in  his  hand  fooling 
with  it.  That  he  was  some  six  or  seven  feet  from  him. 
This  is  all  he  knows  about  it  and  yet  he  swears  this  is  the 
identical  pencil  he  saw  him  have.  Gentlemen,  you  saw 
him  on  the  stand,  heard  his  testimony  —  I  cannot  think  any  250 
one  of  you  believed  anything  he  said.  The  idea  of  identi- 
fying a  lead  pencil  he  saw  only  for  a  moment,  then  six  or 
seven  feet  distant  from  him,  with  nothing  to  call  his  atten- 
tion to  it,  shows  the  witness  to  be  either  demented  or  fool- 
ish. |  255 

The  inquiry  will  naturally  suggest  itself  to  you  why  some 
of  the  many  who  were  there  on  Thursday  did  not  see  this 
pencil  if  he  left  it  there  the  night  before.  Is  it  not  much 
more  reasonable  that  some  of  the  jury  or  some  of  the  others 
who  were  there  dropped  this  piece  of  pencil  and  then  In- 260 
glebretzen,  when  there  the  next  day,  picked  it  up  ?  If  the 
prisoner  left  it  there  Wednesday  night,  it  was  passed  over 
by  all  the  visitors  there  on  Thursday,  and  on  Friday  until 
the  afternoon  of  the  day,  undiscovered  by  anyone. 

Again,  gentlemen,  what  do  they  want  us  to  believe  the  265 
prisoner  had  this  pencil  out  for  ?    Do  they  mean  to  argue 


Study  of  Evidence  433 

that  he  had  it  out  to  make  a  memorandum  of  the  fact  he 
had  committed  the  murder,  so  as  not  to  forget  it,  or  to  pen- 
cil down  the  amount  of  money  he  found?     How  was  he 
going  to  make  much  use  of  this  article  in  the  dead  of  night  270 
anyway  ? 

Second  Excerpt  —  from  the  Speech  for  the  Defense 

Looking  first  at  the  evidences  of  identification  at  Smutty 
Nose  Island,  what  do  we  find?  Under  the  direction  of  the 
Court,  we  have  in  the  case  the  declarations  of  three  persons. 
Mrs.  Hontvet  says  that  the  first  she  heard  was  from  Karen,  275 
who  cries  out,  "John  has  scared  me,  John  has  scared  me." 
That  was  Karen's  declaration.  That  was  Karen's  identi- 
fication. Now,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  mean  to  argue  from 
the  testimony  in  this  case  that  it  proved  that  John  Hontvet 
was  there.  I  do  not  state  this  evidence  for  that  purpose ;  280 
but  the  evidence  does  show  that  whoever  he  was,  he  did  not 
appear  to  Karen  to  resemble  Wagner.  She  had  known 
Wagner  for  a  long  time  and  intimately.  Much  longer  and 
more  intimately  than  Anethe,  who  had  but  a  comparatively 
short  acquaintance  with  him.  Karen  had  been  an  inmate  285 
of  the  house  with  him  many  months  and  had  frequently 
and  recently  seen  him  in  Portsmouth.  The  man,  whoever 
he  was,  did  not  appear  to  be  Wagner.  That  she  looked  to 
discover  as  far  as  was  possible  under  such  circumstances  may 
well  be  supposed  if  she  had  not  declared  who  she  thought  290 
it  was.  The  fact  that  she  did  declare  who  in  her  opinion  it 
was  shows  that  she  looked  long  enough  to  form  an  opinion 
and  that  the  examination  did  not  suggest  to  her  mind  the 
prisoner.  This  it  may  be  said  was  a  mere  casual  glance 
and  not  to  be  relied  upon;  but,  gentlemen,  you  will  rec-295 
ollect  that  after  this  occurred,  when  the  parties  came  into 
collision  and  personal  combat  of  face  to  face  takes  place, 
she  still  says  it  is  John.  That  "John  is  killing  me,  John  is 
killing  me,"  and  after  Mrs.  Hontvet  gets  her  into  her  room 
and  holds  the  door  against  her  assailant,  and  while  she  tells  300 


434  Appendix  D 

her  to  get  out  of  the  window  and  flee  away,  she  does  not  in 
any  manner  change  her  opinion. 

Now  here  are  two  facts  of  great  importance  in  this  case. 
One  is  that  the  person  did  not  resemble  Wagner  in  the  judg- 
ment of  one  well  acquainted  with  him,  and  the  repetition  305 
made  by  her  of  this  fact  adds  to  its  force.  She  had  the 
means  of  knowing  better  than  any  one  there.  Mrs.  Hontvet 
says  that  when  she  looked  into  the  room,  he  was  standing 
by  an  uncurtained  window  in  a  moonlight  night,  and  it  did 
not  even  occur  to  her  that  it  was  Wagner.  310 

Wagner  tells  you  that  at  a  certain  time  in  the  morning,  he 
came  into  the  house  of  Johnson ;  where  he  went  in ;  what 
rooms  he  passed  through ;  that  he  sat  down  upon  the  sofa ; 
and  in  course  of  time,  fell  asleep  upon  that  sofa.  This  he 
told  to  gentlemen  in  Boston  immediately  upon  his  arrest,  315 
and  this,  too,  he  told  all  the  way  along ;  and  gentlemen,  it  is 
not  too  much  to  infer,  or  at  least,  suspect,  that  he  may  have 
testified  to  it  at  South  Berwick ;  but  I  say  he  had  told  it  at 
that  earlier  period  of  time,  and  all  the  way  thus,  and  upon 
the  stand  now  has  told  the  story,  how  it  took  place,  and  who  320 
contradicts  it?  Nobody,  but  John  Hontvet.  How  does 
he  contradict  it  and  when  does  he  contradict  it?  He  says 
that  he  was  out  and  in  through  that  room  at  various  times 
and  did  not  see  him  there.  That  is  the  declaration  in  the 
morning.  Later  in  the  day,  he  comes  and  undertakes  to  325 
put  a  man  by  the  name  of  Loud  upon  that  lounge  all  night, 
and  till  five  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  at  that  time  he  went 
off  and  left  him.  He  is  the  man,  mind  you,  who  has  shown 
himself  in  the  manner  he  has ;  the  man  who  conducted  him- 
self in  the  manner  he  did  in  the  crowd  which  surrounded  330 
that  prisoner,  and  the  man  who  sought,  while  this  prisoner 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  officers  of  the  law,  to  take  his  life ; 
himself  the  would-be  murderer.  You  have  noticed,  per- 
haps, the  long  cross-examination  that  was  had  of  Mrs. 
Johnson.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  the  truth,  335 
which  ultimately  did  appear  from  her,  that  Loud  was  in 


Study  of  Evidence  435 

bed  upstairs  on  that  morning  when  she  got  up,  and  she 
never,  from  that  time  to  this  hour,  knew  that  he  was  on  the 
lounge  otherwise  than  as  John  Hontvet  has  stated.     They 
trust  to  John  Hontvet  for  this  story.     She,  unsuspecting  340 
what  we  were  seeking  for,  tells  you  that  Loud  was  in  bed 
in  the  morning  when  she  got  up  —  very  early.     Loud  was 
not  called  by  the  government  to  prove  where  he  was  — 
to  prove  that  he  lay  on  this  lounge,  and  to  what  period  of 
time.     John  Hontvet  saw  somebody  there,  he  says,  on  that  345 
lounge  until  after  five  o'clock.     If  he  did,  and  Loud  was 
in  bed  upstairs,  is  that  not  entirely  consistent  with  the 
prisoner's  story?     They  cannot  now  be  allowed  to    say 
there  was  no  man  on  the  lounge,  Loud  not  being  there, 
because  Hontvet  says  there  was  a  man  there  —  he  saw  him  350 
there. 

Now  from  the  earliest  moment  of  time  down  to  the  pres- 
ent, after  his  arrest,  he  has  always  told  parties,  as  far  as  the 
evidence  shows  here,  that  at  a  certain  time  in  the  evening, 
he  fell  down  near  a  pump,  and  lay  there  some  time  near  355 
this  pump.  This  has  not  even  been  regarded  as  of  sufficient 
importance,  by  the  government,  to  seek  to  disprove  the 
statements;  but  somehow  or  other,  some  government  or- 
der, post  haste  last  night,  was  sent  for  the  whole  force  of 
these  Portsmouth  police  to  come  in  here  and  prove  that  360 
they  did  not  see  him  there  near  the  pump.  Now,  I  cannot, 
even  in  this  case,  help  making  the  remark,  that  it  is  a  strange 
kind  of  effort  for  the  government  to  make,  to  prove  that  a 
policeman  did  not  see  anything;  for  courts  almost  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  they  do  not  see  anything,  365 
except  what  they  want  to,  and  whenever  you  want  one  of 
them,  you  are  not  able  to  find  him,  and  you  would  not  very 
often  expect  to  find  him  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  a  pump 
either.  Now,  there  is  a  long  string  of  witnesses  brought  in 
here  to  show  that  Mr.  A.  and  B.  and  C.  did  not  see  this  man  370 
lying  down  there  by  the  pump,  and  because  they  did  not 
see  him  there,  they  ask  you  —  for  the  responsibility  is  not 


436  Appendix  D 

resting  on  them  —  because  they  did  not  see  him  there,  they 
ask  you  to  convict  him  of  the  murder  of  these  two 
women.  375 

Third  Excerpt  —  from  the  Speech  for  the  Prosecution 

Wagner  says  the  two  glasses  of  ale  got  him  drunk  and  he 
started  and  went  through  Market  St.  and  Court  St.,  and  as 
he  was  going  by  a  pump,  he  slipped  down  upon  the  ice  that 
cold  night,  and  lay  there  until  two  o'clock ;  that  he  went  to 
sleep  there,  rheumatic  as  he  was,  and  froze  his  feet.  The  380 
officers  who  patrolled  that  street  have  been  on  the  stand 
here.  They  tell  you,  that  during  those  hours  they  saw  no 
man  lying  at  the  pump,  although  it  was  a  bright  moonlight 
night.     He  asks  you  to  believe  this  absurd  story. 

What  next  ?  At  two  o'clock,  he  got  up  from  his  bed  on  385 
the  ice,  and  started  for  his  bed  at  Johnson's.  He  entered 
the  back  door,  went  through  the  kitchen,  down  five  steps ; 
went  through  the  kitchen  past  the  door  of  his  bedroom  up- 
stairs, down  five  steps  into  the  middle  room,  and  through 
a  door  into  another  room,  the  back  shop,  crossed  that,  and  390 
lay  down  upon  a  lounge,  where  he  slept  till  five  o'clock. 

Now,  what  was  the  situation  of  that  house  that  night? 
Under  what  circumstances  was  he  lying  there  upon  that 
lounge  the  two  or  two  and  a  half  hours?    John  C.  Hontvet 
was  in  that  front  room,  in  the  front  shop,  adjoining  this  395 
room,  with  a  door  opening  into  it,  —  John  C.  Hontvet  and 
Christensen,  both  at  work  there  till  after  six  o'clock  in  the 
morning.    They  commenced  their  work  between  twelve  and 
one  o'clock,  and  were  engaged  there  all  night.     Both  these 
witnesses  so  testify.     Loud  was  there,  and  Hontvet  testi-400 
fied  that  he,  Loud,  after  helping  them  from  one  to  two,  or 
thereabout,  lay  down  upon  that  lounge,  and  lay  there  till 
towards  five  o'clock  and  then  he  went  to  bed.     Mr.  Kennis- 
ton  testified  that  he  went  to  bed  about  half  past  twelve  and 
Loud  was  there  then,  and  if  it  had  been  possible  to  have  405 
Loud  here  at  an  earlier  day,  we  should  have  had  him  here, 


Study  of  Evidence  437 

but  we  could  not  get  him  until  after  the  testimony  had  closed 
for  the  government,  except  the  introduction  of  rebutting 
testimony,  and  then  it  was  not  admissible.  But  we  offered 
him.  There  was  one  light  in  the  back  shop  on  the  counter,  410 
where  the  pitcher  of  water  was,  and  they  had  one  side  light 
in  the  front  shop  where  they  were  baiting  trawls.  In  this 
back  shop  was  the  stove  from  which  the  front  shop  was 
warmed.  With  these  two  men,  then  and  there  at  work  all 
night,  going  in  and  out  for  water,  and  Loud  upon  that  415 
lounge,  you  are  asked  to  believe  the  most  absurd  statement 
by  the  prisoner,  uncorroborated,  as  it  is,  by  one  single  fact 
or  one  single  witness,  that  he  entered  that  shop  unseen  and 
slept  upon  that  lounge  unnoticed  from  two  o'clock  till  day- 
light !  Why  did  he  say  he  lay  upon  that  lounge  ?  Why  did  420 
he  not  say  he  went  upstairs  to  bed?  When  he  came  in 
that  morning  he  committed  himself  to  the  lounge,  or  com- 
mitted himself  to  the  fact  that  he  was  in  the  house.  He 
said  to  Mrs.  Johnson,  "Did  you  hear  me  when  I  came  in 
last  night  ?"  "  No,  sir,"  she  replied,  "  and  your  bed  was  not  425 
tumbled."  Now  what  must  he  say  ?  Where  else  could  he 
go  to  lie  down,  but  on  that  solitary  lounge?  He  forgot 
Hontvet  and  Christensen  were  there  at  work.  "Oh,  but 
I  lay  on  the  lounge,"  said  he.  "How  is  that?  Hontvet 
and  Christensen  were  there  at  work,"  said  Mrs.  Johnson.  430 
Then  he  was  in  a  dilemma,  but  he  sticks  to  the  statement 
that  he  lay  upon  the  lounge,  contradicted  by  all  the  testi- 
mony in  the  case.  Then,  again,  he  tells  you  that  he  came 
in  at  that  back  door ;  that  Mrs.  Johnson  always  left  it  open 
for  him,  when  he  was  out  late.  Mrs.  Johnson  testified  435 
that  she  bolted  that  door  at  past  twelve  o'clock  that  night ; 
and  her  daughter  held  the  light  for  her  when  she  did  it. 
She  had  usually  left  that  door  open  for  WTagner  and  Kennis- 
ton  to  come  in  at,  when  they  were  out  late  at  night  baiting 
trawls;  but  that  night  Hontvet  and  Christensen  were  in 440 
the  front  room,  and  the  front  door  was  unlocked  ;  so  she 
said,  "I  guess  I  won't  leave  the  whole  house  open,"  and 


438  Appendix  D 

went  and  bolted  that  back  door,  and  her  daughter  held  the 
light.     Kenniston  came  in  at  half  past  twelve  o'clock,  as  he 
testified,  went  to  the  sink,  which  is  by  the  door,  to  wash  445 
after  baiting  trawls,  and  he  said  that  he  saw  that  that  door 
was  bolted.     Again,  Mrs.  Johnson  testified  that  she  was  up 
first  in  the  morning,  at  half  past  five,  and  Hontvet  and 
Christensen  were  there  then,  and  that  she  unbolted  that 
door  herself  that  morning.     Are  these  witnesses  impeached  ?  450 
Is  their  testimony  impaired  ?     Is  any  confidence  to  be  placed 
in  human  testimony,  when  corroborated  by  so  many  cir- 
cumstances, by  so  many  witnesses  corroborating  each  other  ? 
Yes,  impeached  by  the  testimony  of  this  one  man  here,  on 
trial  for  his  life,  and  who  has  such  a  powerful  reason  to  im-  455 
peach  it ;    by  nobody  else. 

Now,  Mrs.  Hontvet  tells  you  that  the  man  who  killed 
Karen  and  Anethe  was  Louis  Wagner.     She  saw  him  through 
the  open  window,  saw  him  in  the  bright  moonlight.     True, 
she  saw  only  the  side  of  his  face,  for  he  had  his  hat  down  460 
over  his  eyes.     She  saw  his  form,  his  figure,  —  his  shape, 
and  his  size ;  she  was  close  to  him,  within  three  or  four  feet. 
She  heard  Anethe  cry,  "Louis."     She  went  to  the  open 
window,  and  there  he  stood,  "  So  near  that  he  could  lay  his 
elbow  on  the  window-sill."     Did  she  not  recognize  him? 465 
She  tells  you  she  did.     She  tells  you  "  That  man  was  Louis 
Wagner."     He  was  well  known  to  her,  had  lived  in  her  fam- 
ily seven  months.     The  learned  counsel  tells  you  she  never 
would  have  thought  of  Louis  Wagner,  in  connection  with 
the  deed,  if  Anethe  had  not  cried  "Louis  !"  —  had  not  sug-470 
gested  him  to  her  mind ;   and  hence  that  her  recognition  is 
no  more  than  the  recognition  of  Anethe.     Well,  what  was 
the  recognition  of  Anethe?     Did  not  Anethe  know  him? 
Did  she  not  recognize  him?     She  saw  him,  called  him  by 
name,  exclaimed,  "Louis,  Louis,"  many  times.     No  one 475 
had  suggested  his  name  to  her  mind ;  his  name  had  not  been 
mentioned.     On  the  contrary,  mark  the  point,  while  Anethe 
was  shut  up  in  her  bed-room,  she  had  heard  the  name  of 


Study  of  Evidence  439 

John  only.  "John  scared  me,"  "John  kill  me,"  and 
thought  it  was  John,  John  Hontvet.  She  jumped  out  of  480 
the  window  to  escape  from  John,  and  there  expected  to 
meet  nobody  else  but  John.  But  when  she  got  out  of  the 
house  and  saw  the  murderer's  face,  saw  him  face  to  face  in 
the  moonlight,  she  changed  her  niind  and  called  him  Louis ! 
Did  she  know  him  and  recognize  him,  under  these  favorable  485 
circumstances?  Why  did  she  not  call  him  John?  She 
knew  it  was  Louis. 

My  learned  friend  argues  that  if  both  women  had  cried 
"  Louis,"  their  recognition  would  have  made  a  much  stronger 
case,  but  as  Karen  cried  "John,"  and  Anethe,  "Louis,"  it  is 490 
a  balanced  case.  Infinitely  stronger  is  the  recognition  of 
Anethe  than  if  Karen  also  had  cried  "Louis."  Karen  saw 
him  in  the  house  in  the  darkened  room,  with  the  curtains 
down,  a  fact  my  learned  friend  had  forgotten.  In  her  fright 
half  waking  and  half  sleeping,  she  instinctively  called  him  495 
"John,"  because  John  was  expected  and  no  one  else. 

Gentlemen,  you  have  seen  Mrs.  Hontvet  on  the  stand; 
you  have  heard  her  testimony,  and  you  must  have  been 
impressed  with  her  perfect  truthfulness.  She  told  you 
everything  just  as  it  was,  even  connecting  her  husband's  500 
name  with  the  terrible  deed.  "John  kill  me."  John,  her 
husband  !  Oh,  the  agony  of  that  woman,  for  that  moment. 
But  she  tells  you  all,  keeping  back  nothing,  though  it  renews 
to  her  the  pangs  of  that  night.  If  she  had  been  untruthful, 
how  easy  to  have  said,  Karen  also  called  him  Louis.  If  she  505 
had  so  much  desired  the  conviction  of  this  prisoner,  as  has 
been  suggested,  would  she  not  at  least  have  kept  back  the 
name  of  her  husband  from  connection  with  the  terrible 
crime  ?  But  no,  she  tells  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  keep- 
ing back  nothing.  John  was  the  name  she  heard  from  Karen  510 
and  she  tells  you  so.  Louis  was  the  name  she  heard  from 
Anethe  and  she  tells  you  so.  In  the  curtained  room,  it 
was  "John,"  but  out  of  doors,  face  to  face,  in  the  full  moon- 
light, it  was  "Louis." 


APPENDIX  E 
Matekial  for  the  Study 

OF  THE 

Categorical  Syllogism 

The  student  should  be  able  to  expose  the  unsound  reasoning 
in  each  of  the  following  arguments  by  demonstrating  that  it 
violates  one  of  the  rules  for  the  categorical  syllogism  and  also 
by  showing  that  it  cannot  satisfy  the  requirements  for  a  diagram 
of  a  valid  syllogism. 

I.   This  coin  is  not  gold ;  for 

A.  All  is  not  gold  that  glitters ;  and 

B.  This  coin  glitters. 

II.   Republicans  are  not  to  be  trusted ;  for 

A.  Partisans  are  not  to  be  trusted ;  and 

B.  Republicans  are  partisans. 

III.  All  institutions  of  higher  learning  grant  the  degree  of 
bachelor  of  arts ;  for 

A.  All  colleges  grant  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  arts ;   and 

B.  All  colleges  are  institutions  of  higher  learning. 

IV.  Cheating    in     college    examinations     should    not    be 
punished;  for 

A,  Crime  should  be  punished ;  but 

B.  Cheating  in  college  examinations  is  not  a  crime. 

'  V.   No  cripple  is  an  officer  of  the  law ;  for 

A.  No  cripple  is  a  policeman ;  and 

B.  All  policemen  are  officers  of  the  law. 

440 


APPENDIX  F 

Material  for  the  Study 

of 

Fallacy 

The  student  should  be  able  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of 
a  particular  fallacy  in  each  of  the  following  pieces  of  reasoning  : 

1.  He  who  harms  another  should  be  punished.  He  who 
communicates  an  infectious  disease  to  another  person 
harms  him.  Therefore  he  who  communicates  such  a  dis- 
ease should  be  punished. 

2.  The  power  of  the  railroad  employees  in  the  field  of  trans- 
portation is  supreme,  inasmuch  as  they  could  tie  up  the 
whole  country,  because  of  the  helplessness  of  the  railroad 
companies  to  resist  their  demands. 

3.  The  United  States  should  seek  to  build  up  the  strongest 
army  and  navy  in  the  world ;  for  no  one  has  pointed 
out  any  conclusive  reason  why  this  should  not  be  done. 

4.  Colonies  should  not  rebel  against  the  mother  country 
for  colonies  are  children,  and  children  should  obey  their 
parents. 

5.  No  one  can  believe  what  he  does  not  understand ;  there- 
fore there  are  no  mysteries  in  true  religion. 

6.  The  United  States  should  repeal  its  prohibition  amend- 
ment; for  George  Washington,  who  was  accustomed 
to  use  liquor,  was   a   man   whom   none   could  despise. 

7.  Only  the  good  are  fit  to  die ;  therefore,  capital  punish- 
ment is  wrong. 

'8.   The  State  of  Maine  and  the  State  of  Kansas  found  it 
impossible  to  enforce   a   prohibition   law;    and,    there- 
fore, the  United  States  can  expect  no  better  result. 
441 


v^ 


442  Appendix  F 

9.   An  advertisement  reads :    "  This  is  the  best  household 
flour  because  it  is  the  best  for  all  baking  purposes." 

10.  The  State  should  grant  pensions  to  widowed  mothers ; 
because  sixteen  States  are  now  doing  this. 

11.  An  honest  man  is  the  noblest  work  of  God.  Mr.  A  is  an 
honest  man ;   therefore,  he  is  the  noblest  work  of  God. 

12.  The  industrial  depression  in  America  after  the  World 
War  was  due  to  the  Democratic  administration;  be- 
cause this  depression  followed  immediately  after  this 
administration. 

13.  In  reply  to  the  gentleman's  arguments,  I  need  only  say 
that  two  years  ago  he  advocated  the  very  measure  which 
he  now  opposes. 

14.  To  allow  every  man  an  unbounded  freedom  of  speech 
must  always  be,  on  the  whole,  advantageous  to  the 
State ;  for  it  is  highly  conducive  to  the  interests  of  the 
community  that  each  individual  should  enjoy  a  liberty 
perfectly  unlimited  of  expressing  his  sentiments. 

15.  No  institution  of  higher  learning  in  the  United  States 
enjoys  a  higher  scholastic  reputation  than  Harvard. 
This  graduate  of  Harvard,  therefore,  must  be  a  pro- 
found student. 


APPENDIX  G 

Material  for  Exercises 

in 

Brief-Drawing 

The  following  three  speeches  represent  the  Affirmative  case 
in  the  intercollegiate  debate  of  the  year  1918,  on  the  proposi- 
tion :  —  Resolved  :  That,  within  twenty-one  months  after  the 
declaration  of  peace,  Congress  shall  provide  by  legislation  for 
permanent  government  ownership  and  operation  of  the  rail- 
roads in  the  United  States. 1 

First  Affirmative 

The  war  has  brought  us  face  to  face  with  many  serious  prob- 
lems of  internal  policy,  but  none  of  these  is  more  vital  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole  and  to  every  individual  within  it  than  the  prob- 
lem involved  in  the  question :  What  shall  we  do  with  the  rail- 
roads? On  the  solution  of  this  problem  depends  the  life  and 
welfare  of  us  all.  To  all  of  us,  therefore,  it  is  essential  that  the 
railroads  shall  be  maintained  upon  a  basis  that  will  guarantee 
to  the  highest  degree,  adequate,  efficient,  and  uninterrupted 
service. 

To  any  one  who  is  familiar  with  railroad  history,  however,  it 
has  become  more  and  more  apparent  year  by  year  that  the  rail- 
roads cannot  guarantee  adequate,  efficient,  and  uninterrupted 
service.  Early  in  their  history,  without  any  government  regu- 
lation, the  railroads  grew  like  mushrooms,  and  by  a  system  of 
cut-throat  competition,  eventually  threatened  to  bring  about 

1  Case  of  Dartmouth  College  debaters  in  Dartmouth-Colgate  debate 
of  1918, 

443 


444  Appendix  G 

their  own  extermination.  For  them  to  guarantee  adequate, 
efficient,  and  uninterrupted  service  was,  therefore,  impossible. 

Following  this  first  period,  there  came  another  period  involv- 
ing government  regulation  which  has  proved  equally  vain  in 
the  attempt  to  guarantee  these  requisites.  Under  regulation, 
the  railroads  have  found  it  harder  and  harder  to  make  both  ends 
meet,  and  they  have  lost  the  prime  requisite  to  success  in  any 
enterprise  :  namely,  —  business  initiative.  The  result  is  well 
known.  One  after  another,  many  of  the  roads  have  gone  into 
bankruptcy,  and  their  properties  have  deteriorated.  They  have 
been  unable  to  cope  with  labor;  they  have  failed  to  meet  the 
transportation  needs  of  the  country ;  and  finally,  they  have  col- 
lapsed completely  under  the  burden  that  was  placed  upon  them 
in  1917.  Within  less  than  two  years,  we  have  seen  again,  there- 
fore, that  the  railroads  cannot  guarantee  adequate,  efficient, 
and  uninterrupted  service. 

From  sheer  necessity,  the  government  took  over  the  control 
of  the  railroads  in  order  that  their  inefficiency  under  private 
management  might  not  involve  the  country  in  ruin  and  defeat 
during  the  greatest  crisis  of  history.  To  date,  therefore,  we 
find  the  railroads  under  a  system  of  government  control,  which 
can  guarantee  adequate,  efficient,  and  uninterrupted  service,  and 
which  differs  from  a  system  of  government  ownership  only  in  the 
fact  that  the  government  has  not  yet  assumed  title  to  the  roads. 

The  present  condition  cannot  continue,  however,  for  it  was 
created  only  as  a  temporary  expedient.  Either  the  railroads 
must  be  returned  to  their  private  owners,  or  they  must  be  taken 
over  permanently  by  the  government.  With  this  necessity 
before  us,  therefore,  to  solve  the  problem  in  the  one  way  or  the 
other,  the  Affirmative  proposes  that,  within  twenty-one  months 
after  the  declaration  of  peace,  Congress  shall  provide  by  legisla- 
tion for  permanent  government  ownership  and  operation  of 
the  railroads  in  the  United  States.  By  this  proposal,  we  mean 
simply  that  the  government  shall  take  over  the  title  to 
the  railroads,  and  continue  to  operate  them  under  a  sys- 
tem essentially  similar  to  that  under  which  they  are  now  being 


Material  for  Briefing  445 

operated.  This  means  that  the  awkwardness,  the  rigidity,  the 
tardiness,  and  the  irresponsibility  of  all  methods  of  regulation 
will  be  abolished,  and  that,  in  their  place,  will  be  substituted 
the  direct  centralized,  responsible  control  of  the  government 
alone.     v 

In  advocating  this  solution  of  the  problem,  we  shall  base  our 
case  on  three  main  points,  as  follows : 

I.   Private  ownership  of  the  railroads  with  government  regu- 
lation has  proved  a  failure. 
II.    Government  ownership  is  the  only  alternative  for  the  coun- 
try in  controlling  the  railroads. 

III.    Government  ownership  will  meet  the  vital  transportation 
needs  of  the  country. 

For  my  own  part,  I  shall  endeavor  to  prove  that  private  own- 
ership of  the  railroads  with  government  regulation  has  proved  a 
failure,  for :  First,  under  private  ownership  with  government 
regulation,  the  railroads  have  failed  to  meet  the  vital  transporta- 
tion needs  of  the  country ;  and,  second,  under  private  ownership 
with  government  regulation,  the  railroads  cannot  meet  the  vital 
transportation  needs  of  the  country. 

First,  let  me  show  you  that  the  railroads  have  failed  to  meet 
the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country.  According  to 
the  statement  of  an  Interstate  Commerce  Commissioner,  the 
railroads,  for  years,  have  failed  to  handle  satisfactorily  the  peak 
load,  or  maximum  load,  that  is  put  upon  them  during  certain 
seasons.  Not  in  one  year,  only,  have  they  failed ;  but  they  have 
failed  through  a  period  of  years.  Their  most  outstanding  fail- 
ure, however,  occurred  in  the  year  1917.  Then  they  failed  to 
prevent  congestion  and  car-shortages  so  that  industry  and  com- 
merce were  almGst  paralyzed ;  and  then  they  failed  to  move 
coal  and  foodstuffs  so  that  both  their  country  and  our  allies 
were  seriously  threatened.  They  failed  to  such  an  extent  that 
every  terminal  east  of  the  Mississippi  and  north  of  the  Potomac 
was  choked  with  idle  freight-cars.  Because  150,000  freight- 
cars  remained  unloaded  at  terminals,  the  railroads  could  not 


446  Appendix  G 

provide  facilities  for  an  equal  amount  of  traffic  that  was  wait- 
ing to  be  loaded.  Such  a  failure  in  a  time  of  need  may,  without 
exaggeration,  be  termed  a  collapse. 

The  railroads  failed  to  meet  the  demands  of  traffic,  and  they 
failed  to  maintain  proper  facilities  for  handling  traffic.  They 
failed  to  maintain  their  rolling-stock,  and  to  provide  adequate 
or  modern  repair  shops  and  freight  terminals.  In  the  years  just 
prior  to  the  great  collapse,  they  annually  junked  more  locomo- 
tives and  more  cars  of  all  descriptions  than  they  added  to  their 
stock.  They  failed  to  build  repair  shops  or  round-houses  to 
accommodate  modern  engines,  and  the  result  was  that  175  en- 
gines on  two  roads  alone  were  put  out  of  commission  by  the  freez- 
ing and  bursting  of  their  pipes  while  they  were  left  out  on  the 
tracks  awaiting  repairs.  The  railroads  failed  to  provide  proper 
repair  shops  and  they  also  failed  to  provide  proper  freight  ter- 
minals. An  instance  of  this  failure  is  to  be  found  in  New  York, 
where  the  New  York  Central  did  nothing,  according  to  its  direc- 
tors, for  forty  years  to  develop  its  freight  terminal. 

The  railroads,  however,  have  not  only  failed  in  these  many 
ways,  but  they  have  failed  also  to  prevent  repeated  labor 
troubles  from  threatening  suspension  of  traffic.  In  March,  1910, 
labor  troubles  threatened  to  tie  up  110,000  miles  of  railroad, 
and  in  December  of  the  same  year  they  threatened  to  tie  up 
150,000  miles  of  road.  In  1913  the  railroad  brotherhoods 
threatened  to  tie  up  the  whole  country;  and  again,  in  191 7f 
when  we  were  on  the  verge  of  war,  the  brotherhoods  declared 
their  purpose  to  be  to  call  a  general  strike.  During  all  these 
troubles  the  railroads  under  private  ownership  were  unable 
alone  to  cope  with  the  situation. 

In  view  of  these  many  failures,  I  think  I  have  proved  that 
the  railroads  have  failed  to  meet  the  vital  transportation  needs 
of  the  country.  Now,  let  me  prove  that  they  cannot  meet  the 
vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country.  They  cannot  meet 
these  needs,  because  an  alarming  number  of  railroads  have  gone 
into  bankruptcy  or  are  operating  on  a  non-paying  basis.  In 
1916,  76,000  miles  of  railroads,  or  26  per  cent  of  the  total  mile- 


Material  for  Briefing  447 

age,  was  in  bankruptcy,  and  40  per  cent  of  the  stock  was  not 
paying  dividends.  In  only  one  year  between  1910  and  1916 
was  the  operating  income  of  the  railroads  sufficient  to  pay  the 
dividends  on  their  stock  and  the  interest  on  their  debt ;  and  the 
average  operating  income  for  all  these  years  was  less  than  5.36 
per  cent,  which  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  held  to  be 
necessary  in  the  public  interest. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  railroads  have  not  and  cannot 
meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country.  One  of 
my  colleagues  will  elaborate  this  argument  further,  and  show 
that  this  failure  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  railroads  are  under  a 
system  of  private  ownership  and  government  regulation. 

Our  case  for  the  Affirmative  rests  on  three  points :  that  pri- 
vate ownership  of  railroads  with  government  regulation  has 
failed ;  that  the  only  alternative  is  government  ownership ; 
and  that  government  ownership  and  operation  will  meet  the 
vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country.  The  Affirmative 
believes  if  it  proves  these  points,  then  it  has  established  its  con- 
tention that,  within  twenty-one  months  after  the  declaration 
of  peace,  Congress  shall  provide  by  legislation  for  permanent 
government  ownership  and  operation  of  the  railroads  in  the 
United  States. 

Second  Affirmative 

My  colleague  has  stated  for  you  the  grounds  on  which  the 
Affirmative  bases  its  case,  that  within  twenty-one  months  after 
the  declaration  of  peace  Congress  should  provide  by  legislation 
for  permanent  government  ownership  and  operation  of  the  rail- 
roads of  the  United  States.  He  has  pointed  out  to  you  the 
three  main  issues  on  which  this  debate  hinges.     They  are : 

First :  That  private  ownership  of  railroads  with  government 
regulation  has  proved  a  failure. 

Second :  That  government  ownership  and  operation  is  the 
only  alternative  for  the  country  in  controlling  the 
railroads. 


448  Appendix  G 

Third :  That  government  ownership  and  operation  will 
meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country. 

In  my  colleague's  limited  time,  I  think  he  has  proved  to  you 
conclusively  that  private  ownership  of  the  railroads  with  gov- 
ernment regulation  has  proved  a  failure ;  for  he  has  shown  that 
under  private  ownership  with  government  regulation  the  rail- 
roads have  failed  to  meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the 
country,  inasmuch  as  the  railroads  have  failed  repeatedly  to 
meet  abnormal  demands  on  traffic ;  they  have  failed  to  main- 
tain proper  repair  facilities  and  have  allowed  their  rolling  stock 
to  deteriorate ;  and  they  have  failed  repeatedly  also  to  prevent 
labor  troubles  from  threatening  a  complete  suspension  of  traffic. 
He  has  also  shown  that  private  ownership  of  railroads  with  gov- 
ernment regulation  has  proved  a  failure ;  because  under  private 
ownership  with  government  regulation,  the  railroads  cannot 
meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country;  for  they 
are  threatened  with  complete  financial  collapse. 

We  feel  sure,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  you  must  agree  with 
us  that  private  ownership  of  the  railroads  with  government  regu- 
lation has  proved  a  failure,  in  view  of  the  facts  that  the  railroads 
have  not  and  cannot  meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the 
country. 

Now  it  becomes  my  privilege  to  prove  for  you  that  the  failure 
of  the  railroads  to  meet  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  coun- 
try is  due  directly  to  the  fact  that  the  railroads  are  under  a  sys- 
tem of  private  ownership  and  government  regulation.  I  shall 
do  this  by  showing  you  that  this  system  of  dual  control  has 
brought  conflicting  aims  into  the  management  of  the  railroads ; 
and  that  these  conflicting  aims  have  destroyed  private  initiative, 
prevented  effective  cooperation,  eliminated  responsibility, 
and  substituted  dilatory  judicial  processes  for  prompt  ex- 
ecutive action.  From  these  immediate  effects  of  dual  con- 
trol, we  need  advance  but  one  step  further  to  see  the  ulti- 
mate effects  in  a  failure  to  meet  demands  of  traffic,  a  failure  to 
cope  with  the  demands  of  labor,  and  a  failure  to  keep  the  rail- 
roads on  a  sound  financial  basis. 


Material  for  Briefing  449 

First,  then,  let  me  point  out  to  you  the  conflicting  aims  of 
private  ownership  and  government  regulation.  Under  this 
dual  system  of  control,  the  government  seeks  persistently  to 
obtain  maximum  service  and  minimum  rates,  and  the  private 
owners  seek  persistently  to  give  minimum  service  for  maximum 
rates. 

What  has  been  the  result  of  this  conflict?  The  government 
has  had  the  upper  hand ;  for  it  can  fix  standards  for  service  and 
also  determine  rates.  Since  the  aim  of  the  government,  how- 
ever, is  exactly  opposite  to  that  of  the  private  owners,  the  gov- 
ernment has  made,  and  will  make,  its  demands  for  service  exor- 
bitantly high,  and  it  has  made,  and  will  make,  rates  extortion- 
ately  low.  These  have  been  the  conditions  under  which  private 
owners  have  operated  the  railroads,  and  whenever  the  govern- 
ment has  consented  to  readjust  them,  its  consent  has  been  delayed 
so  long  by  the  judicial  process  of  investigation  through  commis- 
sions, that  the  roads,  in  the  interval,  have  experienced  serious 
financial  embarrassment.  The  result  of  all  this  has  been  that 
many  roads  have  been  driven  into  bankruptcy,  while  others 
cannot  earn  an  adequate  return  on  the  capital  invested,  and  the 
public  has  suffered  and  will  suffer  in  deteriorated  service. 

The  conflict  of  aims  in  the  unequal  partnership  between  the 
government  and  the  private  owners  has  worked  in  other  ways, 
also,  to  deteriorate  the  railroad  service  of  the  country.  It  has 
destroyed  all  responsibility  in  the  running  of  the  railroads ;  for 
with  government  regulation  hampering  every  move  of  the  pri- 
vate owners,  they  cannot  accept  responsibility ;  and  the  govern- 
ment, on  its  part,  will  not  accept  responsibility.  The  hard  con- 
ditions, then,  imposed  by  the  government,  and  the  helpless, 
irresponsible  position  of  the  private  owners  have  destroyed  pri- 
vate initiative  and  therefore  deteriorated  service.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  all.  The  irresponsibility  of  the  government,  coupled 
with  its  unlimited  power  of  interference,  has  led  to  labor  unrest, 
has  threatened  the  suspension  of  traffic,  has  raised  labor  costs 
without  increasing  rates,  and  has  thereby  deteriorated  service. 

Government  regulation  in  combination  with  private  ownership 


450  Appendix  G 

has  operated  in  all  these  ways  to  deteriorate  railroad  service, 
and  yet  there  is  one  more  way  in  which  it  has  prevented  the 
roads  from  meeting  vital  demands  of  transportation.  Under 
private  ownership,  initiative  in  railroad  service  can  be  secured 
only  through  enforced  competition  between  parallel  lines.  The 
government  has,  therefore,  prevented  combinations  between 
competing  roads ;  but,  in  so  doing,  it  has  lost  all  the  advantages 
of  a  unified  system  in  a  natural  monopoly. 

I  believe,  then,  that  I  have  proved  for  you  that  the  combina- 
tion of  private  ownership  and  government  regulation  is  respon- 
sible for  the  condition  of  our  railroads.  It  is  responsible  for 
the  fact  that  railroads  cannot  meet  abnormal  demands  of  traffic ; 
it  is  responsible  for  the  fact  that  railroads  cannot  cope  with  the 
demands  of  labor;  and  it  is  responsible  for  the  fact  that  rail- 
roads cannot  avoid  complete  financial  ruin. 

Now  let  us  take  a  general  survey  of  our  case.  We  have 
proved  that  private  ownership  of  railroads  with  government 
regulation  has  been  a  failure.  Next  we  shall  prove  that  gov- 
ernment ownership  of  the  railroads  is  the  only  alternative  that 
the  country  has  for  the  solution  of  the  railroad  problem;  for 
private  ownership  with  regulation  has  failed ;  and  all,  or  any, 
modifications  of  government  regulation  must  fail. 

The  desperate  strait  in  which  the  private  owners  find  them- 
selves is  made  manifest  in  no  better  way  than  by  the  number  of 
plans  they  have  advanced  to  retain  the  roads  in  their  hands. 
No  less  than  thirty-nine  different  plans  have  been  advanced,  and 
they  vary  in  their  recommendations  all  the  way  from  a  govern- 
ment guarantee  of  interest  on  investments  to  control  by  the  rail- 
road brotherhoods  of  laborers. 

We  trust  that  the  Negative  will  not  attempt  to  uphold  any  of 
these  plans ;  for  we  know  that  they  must  realize,  as  well  as  we, 
that  no  one  of  them  will  remove  the  fundamental  defects  of  all 
forms  of  government  regulation.  There  is  no  one  of  these  plans 
that  will  overcome  the  conflict  in  aims  between  the  private 
owners  and  the  government ;  there  is  no  one  of  these  plans  that 
will  restore  private  initiative ;  there  is  no  one  of  these  plans  that 


Material  for  Briefing  451 

will  secure  complete  cooperation  among  the  railroads ;  there  is 
no  one  of  these  plans  that  will  fix  ultimate  responsibility  for 
running  the  railroads;  and  there  is  no  one  of  these  plans  that 
will  secure  prompt  executive  action  in  the  place  of  dilatory  judi- 
cial procedure  through  investigating  commissions.  U  the 
Negative  has  the  hardihood  to  present  one  of  these  plans,  we 
wish  to  know  specifically  what  changes  they  are  going  to  make 
in  present  methods  for  securing  an  adequate  return  on  money 
invested.  We  wish  to  know  specifically  how  they  are  going  to 
restore  private  initiative.  And  we  wish  to  know  how  they  are 
going  to  make  the  government  accept  responsibility  for  its  regu- 
lative acts. 

The  Negative,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  cannot  present  a  plan 
for  regulating  the  railroads  that  will  solve  these  problems,  and 
therefore  they  must  agree  with  us  that  government  ownership 
is  the  only  alternative  for  the  country  in  controlling  the  rail- 
roads. 

Let  us  briefly  now  take  one  more  rapid  survey  of  the  Affirm- 
ative case.  We  have  proved  that  private  ownership  of  the  rail- 
roads with  government  regulation  has  failed  and  that  govern- 
ment ownership  is  the  only  alternative.  Our  next  speaker  will 
prove  that  government  ownership  will  meet  the  vital  transporta- 
tion needs  of  the  country.  By  establishing  these  three  issues  we 
believe  that  we  have  proved  that  within  twenty-one  months 
after  the  declaration  of  peace  Congress  should  provide  by  legis- 
lation for  permanent  government  ownership  and  operation  of 
railroads  in  the  United  States. 

Third  Affirmative 

The  fact  is  that  the  railroads  under  private  ownership  with 
government  regulation  have  failed  to  give  efficient  and  uninter- 
rupted service  to  the  public.  Excuses  can  be  made  but  the 
facts  cannot  be  denied.  It  may  be  contended  with  questionable 
accuracy  that  government  ownership  in  foreign  countries  has 
not  been  an  unqualified  success.     This,  however,  is  no  reason 


452  Appendix  G 

why  the  American  people  should  endure  inadequate,  interrupted 
and  inefficient  service.  To  give  mere  explanations  of  the  des- 
picable, awkward,  tardy,  and  irresponsible  railroad  service 
under  private  ownership  is  not  meeting  the  fundamental  prob- 
lems in  this  debate.  The  fact  is  that  the  railroads  under  pri- 
vate ownership  have  failed  to  meet  the  demands  of  traffic,  failed 
to  provide  proper  terminals,  failed  to  maintain  adequate  rolling 
stock,  failed  to  meet  the  harvest  demands  of  traffic  every  year 
since  1900,  failed  in  the  upkeep  of  their  lines,  failed  to  provide 
sufficient  freight  cars,  repair  shops,  and  general  equipment, 
failed  to  meet  the  necessary  demands  in  a  national  emergency. 
When  the  government  took  over  the  control  of  the  roads  they 
were  back  in  their  upkeep,  alone,  more  than  $491,000,000  and 
the  depreciation  of  the  value  of  the  securities  of  the  roads  in 
bankruptcy  since  1910  was  over  $719,000,000.  In  short,  the 
railroads  were  in  a  perilous  condition,  to  say  the  least,  when 
the  government  took  them  over. 

Certainly  it  will  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  railroad  problem 
in  this  country  and  the  question  is,  can  we  afford  to  patch  up  the 
roads  and  continue  experimenting  with  private  ownership  and 
government  regulation,  or  shall  we  take  a  confident  step  for- 
ward? The  Negative  have  merely  endeavored  to  excuse  the 
contemptible  failure  of  the  roads  under  private  management. 
Their  solution  would  be  to  patch  and  experiment  and  temporize 
with  the  most  vital  industry  in  the  United  States.  Their  sug- 
gestions have  thus  far  been  incomplete  and  incomprehensive. 
Undoubtedly  when  there  is  no  longer  any  opportunity  for  ex- 
amination they  will  tacitly  admit  the  failure  of  the  roads  under 
the  old  system  and  then  begin  to  offer  some  temporary  experi- 
mental suggestions  for  improvement. 

Examine  their  suggestions  for  yourself  to  see  if  they  will  guar- 
antee prompt  executive  action,  insure  responsibility,  restore 
initiative,  and  guarantee  cooperation.  From  our  own  examina- 
tion of  the  thirty-nine  or  more  experimental  projects,  we  find 
that  in  every  case  there  still  exists  an  unequal  partnership  be- 
tween the  government  and  private  owners,  with  the  result  that 


Material  for  Briefing  453 

these  requirements  of  adequate  service  are  not  realized.     The 
case  of  the  Affirmative  therefore  stands  intact. 

I.   Private  ownership  with  government  regulation  has  proved 
a  failure. 

II.   The  only  alternative  is  government  ownership. 

Let  us  now  prove  that  government  ownership  will  meet  the 
vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country. 

Don't  be  confused  by  the  delusions  of  the  Negative.  By  this 
proposal  we  simply  mean  that  the  government  shall  at  the  ex- 
piration of  the  twenty-one  month  period  take  over  the  title  of 
the  roads  and  operate  them  under  a  system  like  that  under  which 
they  are  now  being  operated.  The  questions  of  bond  issues, 
kind  of  rails,  appointment  of  officers,  schedules  and  the  rest  will 
be  met  as  they  are  at  present.  The  questions  which  concern 
us  are  :  Will  this  system  secure  prompt  executive  action  ?  Will 
this  system  insure  responsibility  ?  Will  this  system  restore  in- 
itiative ?  And,  will  this  system  guarantee  cooperation  ?  Con- 
sider the  experience  of  one  year  and  a  half.  During  the  first 
four  months  of  government  control,  car  shortage  was  reduced 
70  per  cent;  6,500,000  troops  were  moved  in  nine  months; 
135,000  more  cars  of  grain  were  handled  in  one  month  than  in 
any  corresponding  month  of  previous  years;  1,328  commenda- 
tions, as  compared  with  only  714  complaints,  were  received  by 
the  bureau  of  suggestions  and  complaints.  Wages  were  increased 
$600,000,000 ;  and  the  estimated  reports  of  the  income  for  the 
year  1918  will  show  a  profit  of  $100,000,000,  in  spite  of  great 
increases  in  the  operating  expenses.  This  saving  was  the  re- 
sult of  more  economical  use  of  terminals,  cars,  labor,  and  the 
rights  of  way.  On  a  group  of  selected  items  alone  more  than 
$85,000,000  was  saved.  By  re-routing  a  total  of  17,800,000 
car-miles  was  saved  in  the  Eastern  and  Northwestern  sections 
alone.  One  hundred  thirty-eight  terminals  were  consolidated 
with  a  saving  of  $1,434,000.  Unnecessary  track  was  torn  up 
and  used  to  advantage  at  needed  points ;  16,000,000  tons  of  coal 
in  excess  of  the  amount  for  the  year  1917  were  moved  from  the 
Great  Lake  region  to  the  Northwest.     Seven  hundred  fifty- 


454  Appendix  G 

eight  officers  were  employed  as  compared  with  907  the  previous 
year,  with  a  saving  of  $1,115,000. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  I  believe  you  will  agree  with  us  that 
government  ownership  has  met  and  will  meet  the  vital  trans- 
portation needs  of  the  country.  First,  by  re-routing,  unifica- 
tion of  terminals,  and  more  economical  use  of  equipment,  the 
railroads  have  been  placed  on  a  sound  financial  basis ;  second, 
by  the  substitution  of  direct  management  for  round-about  con- 
flicting judicial  processes,  responsibility  has  been  assured ;  third, 
by  the  increase  in  wages,  the  abolition  of  dilatory  judicial 
processes,  and  the  better  treatment  of  employees,  harmonious 
relations  with  labor  have  been  secured  ;  fourth,  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  many  economies,  the  initiative  of  the  roads  has  been  main- 
tained; and  fifth,  by  the  elimination  of  commissions,  state 
boards,  and  duplicated  authorities,  unification  of  the  roads  and 
complete  cooperation  have  and  will  be  secured. 

In  short,  by  the  elimination  of  an  unequal  partnership  between 
the  government  and  profit-seekers,  the  economies  of  unified 
management,  the  advantages  of  centralized  responsibility,  the 
absence  of  dilatory  processes  of  control,  have  given  and  will  con- 
tinue to  give  adequate,  efficient,  and  uninterrupted  service  to 
the  country. 

The  plan  of  the  Affirmative  is  direct  and  practical;  and  it 
will  guarantee  adequate,  efficient,  and  uninterrupted  service  to 
the  country.  The  temporary,  inconclusive,  patched-up,  ex- 
perimental suggestions  of  the  Negative  have  perilous  weaknesses, 
and  will  not  accomplish  these  results. 

We  believe,  therefore,  that  we  have  established  the  following 
points :  First,  that  private  ownership  with  government  regula- 
tion has  proved  a  failure ;  second,  that  the  only  alternative  is 
government  ownership ;  and  third,  that  government  ownership 
will  meet  the  vital  transportation  needs  of  the  country.  Having 
proved  these  points,  we  believe  that  we  have  established  the 
proposition  that,  within  twenty-one  months  after  the  declara- 
tion of  peace,  Congress  shall  provide  by  legislation  for  permanent 
government  ownership  and  operation  of    the  railroads. 


APPENDIX  H 


Specimen  Schedule  for  Formal  Debates 

Inasmuch  as  the  making  of  a  schedule  for  debates  that  are  to 
take  place  in  a  class  is  likely  to  be  a  very  complicated  matter, 
the  following  specimen  schedule  is  offered  with  the  hope  that  it 
may  prove  serviceable  to  teachers. 

SPECIMEN  SCHEDULE 


Names  of  Debaters 

Num- 
ber of 
Prop- 
osi- 
tion 

Choice  of 
Subjects 

Diagrams, 
Prelimi- 
nary 
Phase- 
Outlines 

Full 
Briefs 

Debates 

Fulton  v.  Kost 

1 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  56 

Ex.  56 

Arnold  v.  Wettling   .     . 

2 

Ex.3 

Ex.  57 

Ex.  57 

Sutherland  v.  Garrett   . 

3 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  58 

Ex.  58 

Lawyer  v.  Hunter     . 

4 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  59 

Ex.  59 

Owen  v.  Clinton  .     .     . 

5 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  60 

Ex.  60 

White  v.  Childs    .     .     . 

6 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  61 

Ex.  61 

Brooks  v.  Cook    .     . 

7 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  62 

Ex.62 

Mabie  v.  Jordan  .     .     . 

8 

Ex.  3 

Ex.  63 

Ex.  63 

Fulton  v.  Wettling   .     . 

9 

Ex.  57 

Ex.  60 

Ex.  63 

Ex.  66 

Kost  v.  Arnold     . 

10 

Ex.  57 

Ex.  63 

Ex.  66 

Ex.  69 

Sutherland  v.  Hunter 

11 

Ex.  59 

Ex.  66 

Ex.  69 

Ex.  72 

Garrett  v.  Lawyer    . 

12 

Ex.59 

Ex.  69 

Ex.  72 

Ex.  75 

Owen  v.  Childs    .     . 

13 

Ex.  61 

Ex.  72 

Ex.  75 

Ex.  78 

Clinton  v.  White . 

14 

Ex.  61 

Ex.  75 

Ex.  78 

Ex.  80 

Brooks  v.  Jordan 

15 

Ex.  63 

Ex.  75 

Ex.  78 

Ex.  81 

Cook  v.  Mabie     .     . 

16 

Ex.  63 

Ex.  78 

Ex.  80 

Ex.  82 

Fulton  v.  Arnold  .     . 

17 

Ex.  69 

Ex.  78 
Ex.  80 

Ex.  81 

Ex.  83 

Kost  v.  Wettling 

18 

Ex.69 

Ex.  82 

Ex.  84 

Sutherland  v.  Lawyer 

19 

Ex.  75 

Ex.  81 

Ex.  83 

Ex.  85 

Garrett  v.  Hunter     . 

20 

Ex.  75 

Ex.  82 

Ex.  84 

Ex.  86 

Owen  v.  White     .     . 

21 

Ex.  80 

Ex.  83 

Ex.  85 

Ex.  87 

Clinton  v.  Childs 

22 

Ex.  80 

Ex.  84 

Ex.  86 

Ex.  88 

Brooks  v.  Mabie  .     . 

23 

Ex.  82 

Ex.  85 

Ex.  87 

Ex.  89 

Cook  v.  Jordan     .     . 

24 

Ex.  82 

Ex.  86 

Ex.88 

Ex.  90 

455 


456  Appendix  H 

The  exercises  on  this  schedule  are  adjusted  to  conform  with 
the  assignments  in  the  Suggested  Course  of  Study  given  in  Appen- 
dix A. 

This  specimen  schedule  presupposes  that,  when  propositions 
are  chosen  or  assigned,  they  will  be  posted  in  a  list  on  a  bulletin 
board  in  a  class  room  and  will  be  given  a  number  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made  in  the  second  column  of  the  schedule. 

The  abbreviation  Ex.  on  the  schedule  stands  for  Exercise. 

The  assignments  for  diagrams  and  preliminary  Phase-outlines 
mean  that  the  debaters  should  hand  in  at  the  time  of  those  exer- 
cises a  diagram  for  the  full  fifteen  Phases  of  their  case  as  shown 
on  pages  181-182  of  the  text,  with  outlines  of  the  proof  in  chains 
of  reasoning  to  be  used  in  support  of  each  of  the  points  drawn 
off  from  these  diagrams. 

Where  the  specimen  schedule  records  by  number  the  various 
exercises,  calendar  dates  should  be  substituted  on  the  actual 
schedule. 


INDEX 


(References  are  to  pages) 


Accident,  fallacy  of,  111,  113-114. 
Admission  against  interest,  70. 
Admission,  strategy  of,  380-382. 
Admitted    matter,  38,  43,  188,  191- 

192,   193-199,  215,    216-217,  217- 

218,  233-234. 
Aggressiveness,  271,  275. 
Allegory,  96. 
Allen,  Henry  J.,  Governor  of  Kansas, 

387. 
American  Affairs,  Chatham,  306,  360. 
Ames,  Fisher,  313,  337. 
Analogy,    argument  by,   74,   75,   76, 

95-101,  103,  126. 
Analogy,  definition  by,  139,  142. 
Analogy,  use  of,  in  persuasion,   294, 

299-303. 
Analysis,  definition  by,  139,  140,  143, 

162-163. 
Analysis,   process  of,    135-184,    188- 

189. 
Anecdote,  97,  299. 
Antecedent,  83. 

Antecedent  probability,  84,  87,  88. 
Argument,  50,  73-104. 
Argumentation,  2-3. 
Argument    beside    the    point,     107, 

114-119. 
Argument  in  a  circle,  107,  109-110. 
Argumentum  ad  hominem,  107,  116- 

117. 
Argumentum    ad    ignorantiam,    107, 

117-118. 
Argumentum  ad  populum,   107,   117. 
Argumentum    ad    verecundiam,    107, 

118-119. 
Authority,  argument  from,  84,  85-86. 
Authority,  citation  of,  222-223,  237. 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  128,  350. 
Begging  the  question,   107-110,  222. 
Belief,  3-4. 
Beside  the  point,  107,  114-119. 


Beveridge,  Albert  J.,  317,  344. 

Bibliography,  25-26. 

Black,   Jeremiah   S.,    301. 

Brady,  James  T.,  279,  284. 

Brief-Drawing,  203-245,  247-248, 
322—323 

Brief-Outlines,  37,  40,  149-150,  158- 
159,   164-165,    167,    173-174,    180. 

Brief,  specimen,  228-245. 

British  Debts  Case,  Henry,  283,  311. 

Brown,  David  Paul,  297,  334,  341. 

Bryan,  William  J.,  261,  262. 

Burden  of  proof,  12,  18-19,  153. 

Burke,  Edmund,  Conciliation  with 
Colonies,  51,  158-159,  161,  163, 
164-165,  167,  169,  170,  173-174, 
175,  180,  182,  192-202,  208-214, 
220-225,  228-245,  255-257,  260, 
266,  283,  299-300,  308-309,  338- 
339,  359. 

Burke,  brief  of  case  on  Conciliation, 
228-245. 

Burke,  Impeachment  of  Warren  Hast- 
ings, 263. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  133,  394. 

Calmness,  271,  275. 

Card  index,  28-29. 

Cases,   135-137,   156,   156-158,   165- 

167,    170-171,    171-173,    177-179, 

183-184. 
Cass,  Lewis,  298,  316. 
Categorical  proposition,  77-78. 
Categorical  syllogism,  77-81. 
Cause-to-effect  reasoning,  86-87. 
Chains   of  reasoning,  30-33,  36,  39, 

51,  207,  219,  252,  254-256. 
Challenges,    377-378,    385,    386-387, 

401. 
Chatham,  Earl  of,  306,  337,  360. 
Choate,  Rufus,  70,  260. 
Circumstantial  evidence,   53,   54-57. 
Classification,  argument  from,  84,  85. 


457 


458 


Index 


(References  are  to  pages) 


Clay,  Henry,  261,  264,  285. 
Climax,  259,  262-263,  356-358. 
Coherence,  247,  251-258. 
Collecting  material,   23-34. 
Composition,  fallacy  of ,  107,  112-113. 
Composition,    principles    of,    35-43, 

246-364. 
Compromise  Measure  of  1833,  Clay, 

261. 
Conciliation     with    Colonies,    Burke 

(See  Burke). 
Conclusion  in  argument,  50. 
Conclusion   in    brief,    205,    206-207, 

225-226,  245. 
Conclusion  in  speech,  39-40,  43,  354- 

364. 
Concreteness,  282,  293-303. 
Consequent,  83. 
Consistency,  tests  of,  61-66. 
Constructive  proof,  120. 
Context,  definition  by,  139,  142-143. 
Conversational  style,  46-47. 
Conviction,  4-5,  246-268. 
Crime  against  Kansas,  Sumner,  286. 
Cross  of  Gold  Speech,  Bryan,  261,  262. 
Cumulative  evidence,  56. 
Curran,  John  Philpott,  284. 
Curtis,  George  William,  302,  349. 

Dalton,    Helen    Maria,    Defense    of, 

R.  Choate,  70. 
Dartmouth  College  Case,  Webster,  363. 
Deduction,  74-91. 
Definition,  24-25,  38,  135-145,  146, 

162-163,    188,    215-216,    228-231, 

252,  254,  331,  333. 
Delivery,  43-48,  271-275. 
Demosthenes,  7. 
Dignity,  271,  273. 
Dilemma,  125,  131-134,  386-393. 
Direct  discourse,  282-293. 
Direct  evidence,  53,  54-57,  85,  147. 
Directness,  47-48. 
Direct  quotation,  282,  289-293. 
Disbelief,  3-4. 
Discussion,  38,  39,  43. 
Discussion    in    brief,    205,    218-225, 

235-245. 
Discussion,  preliminary,  24,  33,  186. 
Disjunctive  proposition,  81. 
Disjunctive  syllogism,  81-82,  130. 
Disraeli,  Lord  Beaconsfield,  260. 


Distributed  term,  79. 
Division,  fallacy  of,  107,  112-113. 
Doubt,  4. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.  (See  Lincoln- 
Douglas  Debates). 

Earnestness,  47-48,  270,  272. 
Effect-to-cause  reasoning,  87-88. 
Emotional  appeals,  4,  303-319,  357. 
Emphasis,  247,  258-266. 
Enthymeme,  76,  83-84. 
Equivocation,  fallacy  of,  107,  114. 
Etymology,  definition  by,  139-140. 
Evading  the  issue,  115,  382. 
Evading  traps,  389-393. 
Evarts,  William  M.,  345. 
Evidence,  49-72. 

Example,  definition  by,  139,  141-142. 
Exclusion,    definition   by,    139,   140- 

141. 
Exclusion,   process   of,   38,   43,    188, 

190-192,    199-201,   233-234. 
Exhibits,  53,  294-295. 
Expert  evidence,  53,  59-60,  71-72. 
Expository  Introduction,  330-336. 
Extempore  method,  44-46. 

Fable,  96. 

Fact,  matter  of,  49-50. 

Fact,  proposition  of,  20-21,  147-150, 
165. 

Fallacy,  105-119. 

Figurative  analogy,  95-97. 

First  person,  use  of,  282-284. 

Forbes  and  Others,  Defense  of,  North, 
284. 

Formal  argument,  76,  77-83. 

Formal  fallacies,  105-106. 

Freeman,  William,  Defense  of,  Sew- 
ard, 71,  149-150,  295,  340,  346. 

Generalization,  argument  from,  84- 

85. 
Generalization,     iteration    by,     107, 

108-109. 
Gettysburg  Address,  Lincoln,  283-284. 
Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  Wirt,  331. 
Gompers,  Samuel,  387-388. 
Grady,  Henry  W.,  295,  304,  309. 
Greece,  America's  Duty  to,  Clay,  264- 

265,  285-286. 


Index 


459 


(References  are  to  pages) 


Hastings,  Impeachment  of,  Burke,  263 
Hayne-Webster  Debate,  314,  351,  383- 

384. 
Hearsay  evidence,   53,  56-58,  66. 
Henry,  Patrick,  283,  311,  371-373. 
Historical  present,  295. 
History  of   case,   38,    188,    189-190, 

215,  216,  231-233,  331,  332,  334. 
Hoar,  George  Frisbie,  318,  352. 
Holmes,     Alex.     Wm.,     Defense     of, 

Brown,   297-298,   334-336,   341. 
Hostile  audience,  treatment  of,  253, 

255-256,  348-350,  394-398. 
House  Divided  Against  Itself  Speech, 

Lincoln,  261,  301. 
Humor,  271,  274. 
Hypothetical  proposition,   82. 
Hypothetical  syllogism,  76,  82-83. 

Ignoring  the  question,  115,  382-383, 

389-393. 
Imperative  mood,  282,  285-287. 
Imperfect  induction,  91-92. 
Implied  causal  relationship,   76,   84, 

86-91,  94,  99-100,  111. 
Impromptu  speaking,  44. 
Indirect  appeal,  271-275. 
Indirect  evidence,  57. 
Induction,  74-75,  91-95. 
Inference,  50,  74,  106-107. 
Informal  argument,  83-91. 
Ingersoll,  Robert,  295. 
Interpretation,  fallacies  of,  105-106. 
Interrogation,  282,  287-289. 
Introduction  in  brief,  205,  206,  215- 

218,  228-235. 
Introduction  in  speech,  38,  43,  329- 

354. 
Investigation,  23-34,  135-202. 
Irish  Disturbance  Bill,  O'Connell,  264. 
Irony,  274. 
Irrelevant  matter,  38,  43,  188,  190- 

191,  215,  216,  233. 
Irrepressible  Conflict,  Seward,  342. 
Issues,  185-202,  215,  217. 
Iteration,  107-108,  261-262. 
Iteration  by  generalization,  107,  108- 

109. 

Jay   Treaty,  Debate  on,   Ames,   313, 

337. 
Jury,  Right  of  Trial  by,  Black,  301. 


Kennistons,  Defense  of,  Webster,  64. 

Legal  brief  on  appeal,  204-205. 
Lincoln,  Abraham,  261,  283-284,  301. 
Lincoln-Douglas     Debates,     286-287, 

288-289,  301,  353,  389-393. 
Literal  analogy,  95-96. 
Liverpool  Speech,  Beecher,  128,  350. 
Logic,  2,  106. 
Lovejoy,  Murder  of,  Phillips,  348. 

Macaulay,  Thomas  Babington,  265, 

287,  300. 
Mackintosh,  Sir  James,  340,  341,  343. 
Main  case,  153,  154-155,  156-171. 
Main  issues,  186,  201-202,  234. 
Main  points,  36,  217,  234-235,  331. 
Main  speech,  41. 

Major  premise,  77,  78,  81,  82,  127. 
Major  term,  78. 
Material  fallacies,  105-107. 
Memory  method,   44-45- 
Memory,  tests  of,  62,  67-68. 
Metaphor,  96,  299. 
Middle  term,  79. 
Minor  premise,  77,  78-79,  83. 
Minor  term,  78-79. 
Modesty,  270,  272-273. 
Motive  to  prevaricate,  62,  70-71. 
Motives,  appeal  to,  303-319. 

Negative  evidence,  53,  54. 
New  South,  Grady,  304. 
Non-evident  premise,  107,  110. 
Non-Sequitur,  107,  110-114,  115. 
North,  John  Henry,  284. 
Note-Taking,  28-29. 

O'Connell,  Daniel,  69-70,  264. 
Ogden  vs.  Saunders,  Webster,  332. 
Opening  speech,  41,  330. 
Oratorical  style,  46-47. 
Ordinary  evidence,  53,  59-60. 
Original  evidence,   53,  56-58. 
Origin  of  case,  188,  189-190,  194-197, 
215,  216,  231-233,  331,  332,  334. 
Outlines,  36-41,  43,   203-204,  322. 

Parables,  96,  299. 
Parker,  Theodore,  284. 
Partition,  215,  217,  234-235,  256-257, 
331,  333. 


460 


Index 


(References  are  to  pages) 


Peltier,  Jean,  Defense  of,  Mackintosh, 

340,  341,  343. 
Perfect  induction,  91-92. 
Periodic  sentence,  264,  360. 
Personal  Introductions,  336-350. 
Personality,  270-275. 
Persuasion,  4-5,  247,  269-321. 
Phase-System,  154-184. 
Philippine    Debate,    Hoar    vs.     Bev- 

eridge,  290-293,  317-319,  344,  352. 
Phillips,  Wendell,  348. 
Pleadings,  9. 
Policy,    proposition   of,    20-21,    147, 

150-184. 
Positive  evidence,  53,  54. 
Post  hoc,  107,   111-112. 
Precedents,  96. 

Prejudiced  propositions,  17-18. 
Preliminary  discussion,  24,  33. 
Premise,  50. 
Prentiss,  Seargeant  S.,  63,  132,  278, 

281,  339,  361. 
Presentation,  43-48,  271-275. 
Presumption,  18-19. 
Prevarication,  tests  of,  62,  68-71. 
Proof,  5. 

Propositions,  8-22. 
Proverbs,  96. 
Psychology,  2. 
Public  Duty  of  Educated  Men,  Curtis, 

302. 

Question,  9,  187,  188,  217,  282,  287- 

289. 
Question-begging  epithets,  17. 

Race  Problem  in  the  South,   Grady, 

309. 
Rate  of  speaking,  330. 
Reading  method,  44. 
Real  evidence,  53. 
Reason,  73. 

Rebuttal,  41-43,  327-328. 
Reductio  ad  absurdum,  125,  127-129, 

274. 
References,  26,  222-223,  237. 
Reform  Bill,  Macaulay,  265,  287,  300. 
Refutation,  120-134,  218,  223-225. 
Rejoinder,  156,  177-183. 
Repartee,  274. 
Reply  to  Hayne,  Webster,  314,  351, 

384. 


Research,  23-34,  135-202. 
Reserved  force,  48,  272. 
Residues,  method  of,  125,  129-130. 
Retort,  274,  277. 

Rhetorical  question,  108,  287-288. 
Ridicule,  129,  274. 
Rowan  and  Free  Speech,  Defense  of, 
Curran,  284. 

Savannah    Privateers,    Case    of,    279, 

284,  345. 
Second  person,  use  of,  282-285. 
Sequence,  laws  of,  251-256. 
Seward,   William   H.,   71,    149,   295, 

340,  342,  346. 
Sign,  argument  from,  76,  86-88. 
Simile,  96,  142,  299. 
Simple  iteration,  fallacy  of,  107-108. 
Slavery  Question,  Calhoun,  394. 
Sources  of  information,  25-26,  222- 

223,  237. 
Sources,  tests  of,  61,  62,  66-72. 
Stage-fright,  325. 

Stamp  Act,  Repeal  of,  Chatham,  337. 
Strategy,  365-402. 
Straw-men,  115. 
Structural  outlines,  37-40,  43. 
Subjects  for  debate,  8-22   (Appendix 

B). 
Substitute   cases,  153,  155-156,  171- 

183 
Summary,  40,  43,  225-226,  245,  256- 

257,  356,  357,  358-360. 
Sumner,  Charles,  286. 
Suspense,  259,  263-265. 
Syllogism,  76,  77-83. 
Synonyms,  142. 

Tact,  270,  273,  280-282. 

Temper,  loss  of,  275. 

Ten-Regiment   Bill,   Debate   on,    133. 

298,  316. 
Term,  8-9. 

Theory,  matter  of,  50. 
Transitional  Introductions,  350-354. 
Transitions,    45,    256-258,    350-354, 

356-357. 
Turning  the  Tables,  125-127. 
Typical  instance,   93-94,   294,   296- 

298. 

Ultimate  issues,  186, 


Index 


461 


{References  are  to  pages) 


Undistributed  term,  79. 
Unity,  13-14,  247-251. 
Unprejudiced   propositions,    12,    17- 

18,    220-222. 
Unwritten  evidence,  53,  58-59. 
Uprightness,  270-271. 

Verbal  evidence,  53-54. 
Vindication,  personal,  276-277,  339- 

341. 
Vividness,  140,  260-261,  282-303. 

Waived  matter,  188,  191-192. 


Webster,  Daniel,  64,  65,  314,  332, 
351,   362,   363,   383-384,   385. 

Webster,  Eulogy  of,  Parker,  284. 

Webster,  White  Murder  Case,  65,  71 , 
276,  295,  385. 

White  Murder  Case  (See  Webster). 

Wilkinson,  Judge,  Defense  of,  Prentiss, 
63,  132,  278,  281,  339,  361. 

Wirt,  William,  331. 

Witnesses,  tests  of,  62,  66-72. 

Word-pictures,  294,  295-299. 

Wrangling,   2. 

Written  evidence,  53,  58-59. 


GENERAL  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSE  OF  C^IFORRClBERKELEY 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

Th.boo^dueon^elastdaees^pedbelow,, 
date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


» or  on  the 


LD21-100m-V54(1887sl6) 


ny 


<u 


YB  02 1 bA 


/ 


